Skip to main content

Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"

See other formats



Digitized by tine Internet Arcliive 

in 2010 witli funding from 

CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Researcli Libraries in Illinois 







/«tf«ntiant in frror. 


W. IRVING 07OPN?, n. p, KAfHA 
and GjF.OPG'^ 1 VOC«^F «*» R<o«ivi»r» 
of ti.« CHICpO * WlL'ffAf'?'^ FLFC* 
TPTC FAr?.Ko/n r0VPAI?Y,a; corpora- 

Plftintifff lo Error, 

1B4I..A* 11 

) fPROP TO CIF^ruiT 

'i } 


r«f«n-'ant in «rror, •*llU*>if. PrsnA, 08 adffTni 6 traitor 
of th$ ^al'^t«s of Cbi-rias Brani, deo'SRStd, co»'i3nced 
•gainsti"". Irving Oabortas, r. B- Ranna %nrj G<JOTg© 0." 
©•iveri of th« rMc»2>''' *- Wil'^imkes Flftctrlo Ks-llros 
plaintiff*! in error, tc r-^cover lft«;3,5ej f >r IKe 
3ea^tti oC plRir.ti'f '.J dL9o«i1«rt. . ^,^ 

/ Tba case *«-« tr.l«j.'i W;On »n «.««nds4^ 

el cling of »«vsfl count 3, ■:iil of '•hich ^llesedl 
intiiat'its wa^i in ti-s 3x«rci»* of ordinary cht» 

*n4 iLat the dsfealante, p]«ln+lff« in «rror, j^^^.-^^'^^f ^*' ^^-eg- 
ligenca in the foUo^lnp- r^firt loiaJare, ns."::<*ly;Ble charts In tj:«^ 
fir^t ;sr,'.-? a^oonri o.-;unts -"ae t^wt t!«y c».i;^laWiy, n93;li|>P9ntly ' 

s^.'^. improperly r«n, o)i,:«rete4; wftlBtainod, 

i,g9d find oo]ntr)Dli«<l 

'ihfl car -Men rf.n in* o anrS ;illl«<i Chr.rl«a W^ni}, th* thlr^ oount 

'iY<srr«d v violation of hn ordinance of trflfjriilage of "innetk^ 

|lliRitin?r '.l« epeed of trftirieto els»Kt wfii'^ft^n hour, «.n3 in^th« 

fourUi count, the dofenda-nta ^sre cl»ftr,'?;«ci|pith »- riol'Atioa;- of ar 
or<iln»»nce Uniting th« «p9^..1 to aij?}::t.mi»i : an howr at »tre«t 


•JAN 1 1 "52 










cro»»lngt «iC.J flftten «il«, «n bour on other portions 
Thiiw^y, irj tl.« firth count tn^.r« *«« RUeg«d j^ 
r«^l»tliijr tha a.r.e*vi of trRlnc through t>' - * ♦ 

•.larm t.. K« .».^^.j ^ ^ ^ street croaelnff und thjit 

rnxmrm lo Of? BoundefJ when *rrroso*-' 

the aervflnta of t)i« d^fv '"^« fall^'l to aount en ftlBjr«i and the 
sixth to»'-* /•*v««''-« ^hH aTerrreni« of the fowrtl. oci flfl): counts. 
ihe eeventh count ohtirges thct the <t«f4n(l«nto fsiled to provide 
&nd «(iulr their oar* ^rith proper irs'.chlnery nnr* oppJisnoee for 
• toppin«^ and failed to ke<sr the tamt in food repair ^ni condition. 

It appeare from the ^viaence in th« rscorc! tfcat 
Obr^rlee Br&ntS, plaint Iff 'e Inteetats, hh:l b««K driving: a ourriage 
©■wne^ by hi« f»'ther, which ot^rriAfe **» vjeed in maetiag eufcurWri 
trains arriving 'st the ^'inretka atatlon of tis^ Sorti'^eBtern Pall- 
^ey fi.r the r^ur o«e of procurlns paeeeng-era fr^r hir« ic, ta taken 
to their varlouo homae in Ue village. Th*} deoedsnt hsii b*ieii 
eai^raned in t,r;iB ^orK for t''»o y9Hr« ^n:! «s.« t,horoUi?-hly f?iir.iliar 
«ith t! a eurroundlnga ani loo=:;tion. On tts r^ip-ht t^^tl h« '«&a 
killed, h>j procura-d a paeaenf^jgr frrjjr. on* of th* eufcurb^n tr5iiiia 
shortly aft^r six o'clock in the 'Evening ^n;:^ irov^s the ya-aaenger 
to h^s^ h<3w« $0JTe three or fcur Mocfee frof?: th«! i-t-tlor, an;i east 
of th-s electric T^^llsRy traol«9(op4rat«::l by the plaintiffs in error), 
&nd ■t^si reiurnln^: to t <, - r^ailrosA Ktetlcn f;irtv* purfose of f!«st- 
Ing anothssr train due vary i^hortly. K<« -saa irivirii.-?; in » w*»eterly 
direction on Osk setreel, lnt«i«dln«: rc> cro«® tha irac*« of ths 
eleot.rlc roM on hiw si^y to tha Sorth^rgetsrn depct. It *a« th®n 
&bout t^:30 in th« evening? of th® fourth day of Hovamti^r, 19W, ami 
it. »Ag J&rk. Tht? c!sr *hlch ri'm into ths rij? «a«i feoxithbown'i or 

the w.38t tr?-?ok of the «leotrlc ro«**l, 

Thsjre l» no sjontroverey In ths «vl:lar»C9 ss' to the 

follo'^^ln.f?: f H.Ota: thot tir.s 03f «lopr«.i at ti'.a 11)!^ str'jst &inliont 

whloh *».•» 6;.-:5 faat north of O^i*. ©tr^st «h«i-« the ^ccitsnt h«p- sn- 

edi tha.t the car if»« equijpe-l "•'Ith a powerful igiectrlc 4«&rc;h» 
llf;ht "i^hlch ^V5;« bvrnlna- ®t the tl^e «nd *hich could have bfufn aeen 

--/ >-* 


on « -Ual^Rt tr^ck at a dislH^ct of *.t l«ft,t kIU ""^ *^'*^ 
the c^r «a, lighted up brightly inel.^. a« «uev '^'^ ""^'"'^^^ '"**■*• 
At the aame tl«9 th«.t thie C4i- w.^.,* ap-' ^''*^*'*^ ^''•"* *^^'^ worth, a 
nor tub ow ad oar o« tii« eiectri- **^'*' '^^*® •';uirp<*t^ «lt). « pc^ar- 
fill h«aiii;?iit #ftloh ■^* biirninnr, *4«i junt ft tit tin?? f 1 our ttm Oak 

vtrsat jjts*^oo w^lilch wftd about 100 f9t*t »outli of the south lina 
of Oak «lre«t, *ncl wm» rroo««dln'f alowly towar<i Osk atrH«t, tin-; 
until t^« rig drl"»«n by tna deoeao'Kj jr.ot Into the glare of the 
b^tsUligiit on lhi« QSLV, it ■?- a not ««9n by ^ny ^^itnew*. 

It xrP9»T» from ths avl-lisnc© th^t tr s ▼l'*-? rMcb 
tJbis d«o©feis«d hF." cf thd •^t.■i:ro«chi^.g aouthbou'nd oar frca tji« nortti 
•SB uBctonlTuoteci b> anything; oxodft t f«w tr5?«a, fros- »hich tte 
l«8Veft h«Jd fall«n, for «at 2«a»jt 300 f««t saet of th« intersection 
of OiJt 3tr««t ami tu« track upon which th® c»r i*a& running, and 
tb^-t lL«sre «»« 6 cl«»r uninterrupted vi«'^ froK t?j«t point to » 
point on ihf* track or ^l-:loh thf car 'V^b running, ',i4C fw*;! nortrj- 
wsat of IL« 4nt9f <»«ot ion "^f Oak atn^st ?and. the «i«ctrici traak, or 
froir. th« i^l&ca -^iist & tix;^ *cei*1<?nt, t?pr ^--^^^l. "^hsA tha deoe&QSEd 
r««*oh«.:l a point '"■Ab fe8'. frow. tf>j r l.ace <\>t th^: »ct:;iT-'-r.t, »'.« cjulci 
S9tt tti« o-<»r -^iissn it »a.^ 's'.or'? than :i4C f>:?'St not *l: of the r.oiKt of 
thd ft.ooident, a.n(i th«» closer inn riecie^se:-^. O'^^m*! t, • tJT!^ trsc^t tit..s 
»!or« extsndevl fcia vl*«» of the tr^no* wpon vhioh thrj c&r fi orr. thss 
north ■^<xe B.i:i\T0;\ahith7 th«s cro8Bin;f, ^Imn h« '?3» ■sltJ"in 50 or 60 
feet of the point wti^sre tie aoold nt ;.5ccurrftd, h« -'oull h:-.v«j a 
clear vi-sv^ vip ths e!.*iotrlc tracks for st least thr^M? long blocKs, 
or ov-sr 1000 f^*t. 

The ;jn'ly oV^strv.ctlon +n ti.« vi@^ of tr.a ?ippro»£ 
cy.r 5'8 above in';io;i,t8ii *«« rj tcj-': of trssa, about «ilgrit9*n inores 
in dlsweter, loested on i)v. north sai^t of Oak ®t.y,««t. Thi« tr«*«9 
sr«f8 fro© 21 to P>2 fset ap«rt. 

The Jury r«turn«.^ i' wer?.lct -if^-inist th« ;:J»r«?n;iante, 
plalntiffc in si;ror hare, tor th® suw of !|.^0Q0, and judgiE«nt ^-fts 




«jat(ar»d on U.a v«rdlct. Th2.f» ^rlt of actor i» ev&d ou* tc rt- 
▼«r»« tb}»t Ju4gi»,«nt, 

Upon « carefal con«Plct% ratio- f>f *'•'« is^l^anca, ». K&Jori- 
ty of th« court has re)ftch«d th« conclusion that th« plaint If fa 
iot«Bt8ie, C)..s,= rlee Br»«<J, w»» (^uilty cf euoja crntrifcutcry ncgli- 
£«nce eLB to bcr » recovfjry an.':! that h« did net ex«»rci«5€ or.1ln»ry 
o*r« for hio o*n escftty »r i»T«rrevl in th« dacJarRtlon. The apt roach 
of tb* oar fro» Xl<i nortfc «a® rl^i^ily visible to t.">e deceased ^vi^en 
fce reis 50 or 6v f««t •&6t of tr« orowftlng, $in»i If he b»d looked 
or sxorcioecl srny cftre »ucl. &a a per eon «^owld ordin»rlly «x«rGiBe 
who w&u ifcfcout to oroes r*ilrii>ed tr«sGk«» *li«*re );« kne'' that trains 
'»«rtt ffefSBiBg feoth ways oort inur-1 ly, te »oul1 h«)V« aeen tt<e ap^'roaoh- 
In^^ car in. awpl*t tlr>i« to !.,«?»« «♦ voided going upon the trieck in front 
of it. It i* vnr«ti«on»i5le to fceliev-s that ^e looked for the 
Approftchicg cfer sn^. ii.l not ii9« it In vi««^ of tie vn.llirwt«d 
ivldl«nce vg to tbe {jhwractisr of TLe h«e43i£?ht *hich »?» burning 
briS'btiy Ana tt« jsjsknner iu '*hich the car itseif w.^« lisirnteti, and 
tfifij conaitioBffi surroufs-Jinp; tb»jr croaair.g. ""hilt, ^(s- urgef? by 
di«f«cd».iit in error, tii*rff ^«rd ko«.9 trees staoding; on Urn north 
8i>ie of Q&k atrial, these trs/;e --v'/uUI not, ••according to th« «?vl- 
d^snoe, ffi.«t«ri8.13y Jnterfer*) '^'H.l: Mb vi^??' of t5;ft tr^cka for fro(?* 
300 to 400 feet north of the point of tt:« ficcx.^'^nt. That hl» 
»tlei3iion scjiy havs bean ':3ivj-.rt«4 "by th<> cr.r "??hicri ^*^. :* leaving tha 
Btstion BOWth of O'^-ir 0tre«;t *'»i« no excuse for hit< faiiiar* to ob-- 
8«H"ve ins Out si jj:roaobitsg f'-om tLe north. Ai? ti « citsceiie^'i '«&s 
appro&Gijing: ths 0*k 8ir*s'.n crosain^ sxn?? the c-oint wh«re i-.« »aa 
atrutih, Lss •.?^.e >-'^rti*.i}y faoin^f ir. th? Jir'sctlon fr off: *hich '•het 
soistlilaounl c-<.r ■'?«« fSF-roaobinf, ssna tha oar, thwrsfore, iXAi^t 
have be«4n in full vIkw of lr,i« aec3ii4a«.1 if It^ h^i'i looked « little 

to thfe right or axtsrcis&u ^uy C'^^r* ^ith r«ff«jr«snGS 1.) t:.® 6|.=prouc!h 


of the aouthhoua^J o«.r. Be ^-'aa thorou^jrhiy familiar, a» th-D Rifi- i 


dencfl «.bo«a, mitb tit's aituation sni tb® u«s of tl-.s s^^ctric track* 









or«rat«d by pl*lntlff« in arror, ^n^l kae-^ th« trelna *•«•- 
canetrAntly pa««lnff tach »»y or «'«r9 liabls tc be ra»*'*«(r •*«»» 
way at nny timt upon thoa© track p. The cond^*^*^"* '^'^''^ aurround* 
iaja of the olaoa "vbere th« ftool.Jaot ftipren^d rtak® It Iropoealbie 
to bftll9T« ttut the daoaaa*^ looXsd or ll«t«p.«d for tha approeoh- 
ing aar or «xarui««>^ any c»«r^ what«v»r for hie o^n safety Juflt 
befor*9 a-ni wLlla he wata ^vttanptlne; to cross the tracks, 

A rHilro«?i oroasin'ir at ffr8-<i« ov«r a highway la a 
plaoa of i*ng«r, aod th« axarci^^ of cine care at auob a plaoa ra- 
Quiras a:>m«t))ln£: wor« froir k travsier in tb* v«y of car« than 
while he i^ fAeslag- alon«^ a «tr««t or hlgrhw'yy whare th-sr* 1b no 
poaalbllity of balnjr atruok by ^ paoaine car or loooreotlve. It 
la th* duty yf 8 paraon about to croB«! a T'^iiwRy iraek Jit auch 
<i placa to ap^roach c^wtioualy and to ^rsSaavor to iacsrtain if 
thera le preaent S<fei)<r«r in croaaing. Pennsylvania Co. v.Farana, 
212 III, 39R; Chicago, J»t. Louia ^ P. F. F. Co, v. KutcCineon, 
130 Id. 5ft7. It b.%« be«n raresteiiy hel'? by the Puprere Court 
tiiat «. travaier Hpjroacfcinc h ra ilrois "^ crossing at .^rsi« ^f tJjQ 
atreet or n i;>h^sy ic rsvuireo tf.i -uu* <3ucr> cg<r6 a a ^ j ©rfison of 
ordinary prulenc* «oul-i ^xeroii^e un-isir the f??r^:T« ciroueiatsncBSi, 
and this ordia&riiy ri^r^sin.i© th s u'se of t>;« facultiss sf sight 
an<:j haaring* to iiaoovsr whether :i is «j.ppro/ chin^' or not, 
^'bile it c--»nnot t« gai'i -a a w^ttar o*" !&'<? t.hs't tho f!?.ilura to 
look s-ni iisian unier nil circumot.-nce? •^IXl b«r a r^covary, ygt 
as a quaation of fact, if tbersj in no 9vir?ancs t.^at th!$ travelar 
looksd or ii»ten«l, «n.i If rh<«;rj in no excuf.a for fsiilin-? to cio 
80, sr;'! no cV, ©truotioriS to s^re^'ont sseini^ ths aprroaohin!? oar or 
train before entering upon thfi d?in<5aroxi'? croa^aing, it iruat Is 
beld ae >* -iuestloii of fAct ths^t tl;'-; tra'^aler :il'i not e%:eroi8« 
ordin&ry c»re ^?l,«n. If he t:-'fl~ look^'* or lltteKii, K« coi;l-1 not 
hav-^ I'dli"?! to have aaen os: h^>ir A tta c^.r, CMcfe£C' *■■ ?*orth»4et- 
ern Baii^ay Co. v. Dual'^^vy, l^<s 111. i:;]", 140. If the lacseaed 
«Aa not in ti.e sxarcifsa of due o&r^ sni caution, hsi ^&8, in tha 

•-1 -v ; 


1 C " »J & '. 


eye of th* law, guilty of negllfrenoa; aimI if thmt nftsligenoa 
contributed to Mn iewth, riefendant in «tror cannot reoover. 
Lali« Short « V. S, P. B. To. v. R«e»lon», 150 III. 546. 

In West Chicag:© Pt, Py, Co, v. Vanning, 1?0 111. 427, 
It Je a:*id: "Whiat le ordinary care dersnd© upon the clrcuBstanoaa 
of the s-ertioular Inrtunce* '''han the olroun-eteneea ere auoh that 
an oriin-irlly cairefial an2 prudent pereon would dee.-r it saeentia.! 
to sxercice a jr-jster deyres of c?re end e»ution than upon leas 
threatuninj? ciroumetsnoes, each greater de^r^e of o«.re i^ould be 
but ordlnery oere," 

•One »uet «.ct under all elrovffiet%no9« »e » re»eonably 
prudent pereon ^ould 'ict^ which Is de«o»lnate'i reseonsble or 
ordln^iry care." Chioago, ''^ilirins^ton * Terwilllon Coal Co, ▼. 
Peterson, 39 III. App, 114. 

The »rf IrmsLtiTe aH«g:mtion of dv-? c«»r9 ^tnd oflution 
not bains proved, and willful or »r»nton nes^llfirsno^ not rising 
chcirgsi, it ie unnecessary to examine the ■iTiegrRtlone anri proof 
of nsglis;erce on the c«srt '..f pU» intiffs in error. 

The judPtweni in rfcveraed. 

I mrr. not oatisfi^d thut ih© eiridenca on ths question of 
contributory negligence iranlf«9tly .oreponderAtss in favor of the 
plaintiff 6 In error. Ths preauraption is that the decca-aed wa« in 
the exercioe of iue osre, and tr-e cDnoiueion of th» jijry upon the 
question should in my opinion b« determinative. 


18S • ;8644 

BOBP-PT ''KIT?, POT P. TAPOF. ,^r..-» 
J, P. fTFIC!?LA»!},cr)-iiurtn«ri, 'lo- 
ins busiaeta &e itritf 4 TAITTP, 

^•. / 

IM9U BtltX *n1 HA»FY A.- R^ZfK, 
\ ipr«13e(»». 



/ ^ - -I- • A« X ^ 

n9r«hl.r, •wad dafftodante, «pp«Ileae, for <}<5^»lj?elon« for n«y;tia'- 
tliig » •»!« of r««i e«t«.t« owned by 4i8fenrJ?vnts *t. c5«fendan,t»' rs- 
qu««t. It b«inj? 8tVl«j^«d th*t th« ylaintlffR procur«^ a purohaaer 
r«A.;1y, able and «iillngr, fcvt thi*t tfce d-sf eniftnte rsfu««dl to ««il, 
»ftd Aleo that th« 1«f«nd8nta et^r&«<i to cay tlL"^}^ oofpR-iaalona far 
lh« ««ryioit an.1 later rafxiead so to 4o. r«f ?R:'»?^Rta filed an 
alfidavli of B:-iTit« Li«nyln;r tbe '■*veT<ii'.n^nt s of lis ^ui^TOant of 
elaiK ftn.1 *l»o Iwnying- joint liability. 

The cciuTt «t the alow* of plftintiffw* cas* in^jlruot- 
od the jury to fini tf^s ia»u«'" for %h« -Vfeniant^ 'vniS jwdifSient 
»»« r&nd»r«cJ ups?n ti-« v^r-iiot yetvsrn^d. 

lh% n«gotlation9 V:*tw«>*r, th^ d«f ftft'lante and l-abowitch, 
th9 propoesd purohaswr whom the |:lalntlff« c'iv^lRie-*. to hs.'^e jvro- 
duo^d, -^er« conlugt^d t> on© Kutohinaon vho ??-** in th«s *»?Epioy 
of pJaintlffa. Th«s airi.ri«p.cft !to«« not cliaolo8« wny wpaaifiu *®-. 
ploy»r.s*r.t of th« i-isslntlffa by -J-sf «iias>,nta, or aithar of tfeea^ in 
tfe« (Tetter of aeliln* the prop-^rty. It »j;r*ts.r» that HutoiUneon, 
at a w«©itly maatin;^ '••■f thft «sl««meiii of rlftiatiff«, i9?%rn«d ^hat 
tli« profQjrty In 5\*eatl'3n, st the cortl^,«8«i corner of Ar®lt.'-»tT« 
»m Cylif.irniH -ivenuse^ w-i)? for a^l^, Thinkinr«; thnt )■« bs-d a 

. sru i .■.■■*• :-iit 


cu»tda«ir flk« fR>ul4 b« lilc«ly t? purchtts* th« property, he took qu& 
Arado irnt 10 look at the j^rop^rty, «in4 for the first tl«« »a* 
tlii© i«f«ndaints »nd l«&rn«d fro* tfc«« the price ani t*r»r« on »hleh 
lh«y would WBkkn » •&!• of the proparty, B«««ly, f4S,000, 116,000 
of th« puroija** !toft«y to b« ^ull in ctoh. Afterward* nutchinson 
8U0c««d«'i in int^revtln^ on« L»towitch In tie property, antl Lab- 
o«ltch off«r<id 145,000 for th» proF-isrty, flOO •« month ft^r th« 
n«xt aucce«dlaor t«« «6©nth«,«nd $30,0>7jO in flv« y«ar«, TMa off«r 
»ftc 0ubnlttttd to the d«f«Q<Unts vubjeot tc^ the peyjcent Isy then) of 
a apeoial aMli««meat l«Tl«d on the pr^p#rty. The isfandftnte r^?- 
;}«oted tha ffer but Rarry Rezek, one ^::f th« d«f sndjsnte, sv^iid 
that 1.9 ^ouX-l either take ?4a,000 smd ^ity the 9pscir»I aaaeearseKt 
hia.»«lf or eell for |4S,0'X), th« pureh^e^r to p«,y the apeola2 
»aee5'&:-»aut. Tl*l4 -saa not agree.l to fey tabo-J-itch, &«^ after fur- 
ther talk, lit different tl5«« g.bout ti;r«i: it »'<« a8C^:rt««ined th&t 
there 'vere five inat^liaents of lt« 8p«oi"Jl as^essj^snt c-f tl*)0 
e&cij, oa# of rhXiih lnstaila.«Rt» had b»«n rs^li^ l«&.vinf;- four in- 
«tall«r.9nte unp«.i4. Acjcordlng to futcbittson*:* tsetlaoGy, tiiS pur- 
chaser refuesd to '«.«:rsc to pay 145,000 for tl.® property «a:1 ?&y 
til?, unpaid ineti'ilia&erjts vf tl4 «p«cl^3 S!.©s««o;r.snt , asl the 'ie- 
feadante rsfussd to «ei: unlse* this prcp-sea-d pur cj.^aer 5?otJi-:j pa^y 
jff tbe <j!p«cl8ii ^att»s»7.ent. FiR^il^ LabO'^'itch ot&tad to Kutish la- 
eon th-it •there la om lnsstali:s=^r(t of th-^t »p«oi«i as8e««Rj8nt for 
Ars.ltage a.r«nuc! tot ts-« y«'5r I'S-IO »hlch i-a no-* du®, ^nri ons hs,0 
s.irsjSvjy fce?*A p^id, 0ns iki »':« du« f^rsr the yesr ,r?lO. Wnr^that 
ie while t;%e n««#3ss o*Tiad ths property and I won't r-«y tt;'r.t, Tfce 
three which f^ill due yearly tr':'i-«:«f t«r for thrsf- cor.seoutiv® y-jaro, 
I »tii f.ay. If you ^,^i ih&t thrmigh, I --tH tai;« it.* Fiitchin«on 
then «sE,t tr.oK to lire defendant* ana eubsittad the af fer 'im s-aftfi by 
Liibowitoti, and tbe v1<if«R-1ante ir.®l9te3 tJaey ^.^tui w;>t p&y any c-^rt 
of the a8»e«8»r.ent, «nd, ^.ftar sow's .lieouaeion ^-a Xq a in 
th* f^irouKt of rent!! o* tne prof-^rtj, Fistohineon t;'>,ld to the d«f«n- 
cianto that fe« Kb** that ¥r, Tator, on* of tti© carta«re, ■*mii.l b^ck 

it/* «•« 


J t 



him up in 4*iiuotifl!? froK his oottwiwoione th« ^ISO for tha iap> 
»t»il««nl of tbia; «ii»oial *«»««9a»nt th«n rtu0. JJutaibineon cioea not 
testify lh.*t th« der«ndif>,nt« 's-grsod to dc this, but syya that thers- 
upon they «t©te(! thv«jt they "souli 'lik« to .^sjt .Tor«5i intureat on tha 

«ortfCAg« tc £«cur<s Ui4 dsftrrsd paysaont* thao h^l been talked 

ftbout; antl on the folio^lag: day, Eutclilnaon &ffAi« aa-? Mi«a R*«»li 

in f«ia.r'1 to tha lnt«r«»t, ati.i »h« #ai ' to hins tli;;! they had taik«d 

that oT^r and d»cid«d it ^^aa probably unfair to »ek for *or» ixw 

tef««t in vlei» of irhtit b«<i b««ii said, but •? « ©tatad that eh« had 

ueea i*3r brothdr-in-is * witfc r4fftr«nos to oTooing the d«»l ?Knd he 

wftt Oipoa^d to It, Sfe8 8tat«d that La hell 4 jsorfage oa the 

property *n.l ahfj thought ha wanted th« mortgage j;:aid off, iADti that 

la vie-* of th« fadliog* of h«r brother-ia-la«?, th«y had o.-noluded 

th&t it »?o-ld make trouble if tr.ey «old the property, and thay, 

therefore, ?»ould not rceke si erile without har lrroth'.sr~in~lR#*e con- 

3«Gt, Hutctineon s»*£;!je£>teii lliat they could get th« iuy-sr to »a- 

suiBe tha- «ort:mge aod that the defeR^laatd t».J:© a «ttcond m^rtga^ie 

or. the property for th-^ defers-*.! p£i.yi».^nta. Thi.j ^ia not aeaentsi 

to ana oothitis^ fur^h^r »»© don* in the fay cf ndgatiatloaa, 

Th« atidenc© oonwinc«s ua th;n ILs .;::'xirti=is a«rer oiifne 

t.:- *n tffirai:,^*'^^! s?ltfc r?jfer»ac« to th^ «=ii3 of the property, 1.'n« 

pro8t>«ctiv« ^jurchfiser rj^Vijr aaoe^'tei the tssr«^e of the ij^sf tandantsj. 

There '^aa nev^r any ^c^eUn-j of th* »ia-'is$ bet-^fjan the parties to 

t/.e proi.-'Oded aaie. Thers »a» ao unsorsdltlonal «&Ci'?*pt?mo«i ©f all 

the tBtm» Qt atjJe before th«! offyr of -eale -^lu^ *ith£Jrs.w«, hsnce 

the ooKKi^elona of the broksr «jued for ^iiJ•^^•sr bscajs^ d'ae. c- Cyc. 

of Law :'nc< Procedure, ^55, Sileo pp. 365, 3S0 snd -r'l; C^orooran v. 

"^hite, il7 111. ilf^. In le "ys., ; «.g:« i^^. It Is said: 

"A fcreker amrioysd to Imy, a«6.1.I or rts;ahamt« prcj-.:»rty, 
i« nc». .rdioari}? «rvtltl«>d to coftp«ns»atlQn for fic-Uns: or 
tryinfg to fini ';■ oustojr'jr sft^r the h:^ -Uthdrawn 
Me off«r, -tnoe the jrin-..!. al h-ts y right tc revoke hi« 
ft,p«ncy at s^ny^.« Icfore th& hrok^r f lnd« «* cu«torssr ahls, 
ready 'snd seiXlirscj t« <3onBi;«Fr'?t« tr)0 traK^actios on the v;rin- 
cii:al'«i t«r&«.* (Citin.:: c-uis«*, ir.clualr;:;; Y;:wn;r v. Trs-inor, 
15? Ill, 4^?^) 

Afj «tet,«d iftbovt, the <*vltienc« ahow« ao «»£ loy»«nt of 
ltd plaiBtiffe to »«11 the property. Th* *r.i»«actlo», a« «ho»n 
by tl.e eviaenise, is n« con»ist«nt *ith th« theory that Hutchinson 
*aa s-otin^ fto ojert for th« buyar la it Is that h«s was ><ctlne^ ae 
ftgcnV for th8 9«Uar«. At ony r^te, it i-i ol«&.r Tnm ail th« 
«"rld«r,ca tlt-^t tf « iftrtle» »?«ir& fcu-rrrsining lipon t&a uavUrat&ndlng 
th«U '^ written e^nd b Indian oontraot •^oultl h?!v« to bo drawn up and 
islgnafi by th* rai'tie«,aiatinj: t/)* t«r*s of tf.« oontr&at- In fuJ'. , 
t8fcr» ti:<a A3;ert couli claim coar.iri««iona. Tfc« ♦jrllaijcs eh<3^e 
that -^hnn fl contract -t»o pre ar*'! by Rtitohireon, both parties to 
tha contrstot r«nistfld to ui^n it. L 'b-ri'ltch r«fii^»»f.1 trj sign it 
•Tith-ut tfubiPltt Jn^ it tc M» attorrt»y, -^sc! testified that '« 
nar-^r dSi «ub».it it to hitr. T)^e contract s'aa not «ign«d by the 
dt'fen-iants. Ths arars fact th'it Putchinaon offftr&d to r^y tr>e fl9Q, 
ti:« aasount c? th?? 1n«;talJ.ff«;nt cf th^a 8] «olnl aaassS't'ent then du9 
and deduct i'. from hi,5 caan'issionjr, ;3i'' not unVe » contra«t t- dt^esn 
tba jf.'A-rti«a. So f^r rs tha evi'ienca ahowa, reitht»r of tlQ parties 
to tl-H-! irOi''oa«<3 contract of a^lc«d«d to tile proposition, 
B«for8 a GontraGt could b« srada. At ^•■s? n«eisiss.iry f '.r Labo-»tici5 
and vi«XsB4aBtv to oowe fr. ar 3.;:rs«cgr.t 'rlth r^H^y^-a^^ to all srater- 
ial tlsvr-ents. Ewtchin?on cculd not i;,?**i$ -in agree{f.®rit for th«? by 
aiseusriini; on f^i« o^n ^■-.iti an;i -.^iti^out th«i.T cons^iDt to pay tA* 
?1^>0 in d1.aj;\it«. 

A*«uiBin^ the rnoorri. m.y ^jho'? a i<r;p31a.i contraot of 
e«tplo>'ffi«nl, it -ioK© r.ot ttnd to &hcv th*t , Isintiff ^ i'roovrsja s. 
purotfi.««r ras^-dy jsna ^ininsr to lao^pt th- tf^rss off^jred by :5e« 

In our .^piniori tha ccurt di'! not -srr in instruotin^; 
th& jury, at ti.« clo** of nlaintirfig* «vi i-ync^, to fU,1 the l©,m«a 
T^r th«> d9fsn4»jst«. T^te J^iigmant, is; afflra;€.1. 

I think th'Sr'S ''?'^» ^suf f tolsrit ©viienc^ in support of 



plaintiffs' o«ttt«ctlon lr« • tr.« eubjfci^aioR of th-,; o«.«« tt) 
th« jury. 


tober Term, iqj2, ^^- 



Apps 3 lint. , 


184I.A. 13 

\ mii'^^r^^.v I'HF opismw of th^ coiinT, 

Thl» ;.otiQi} waa hrouglst fey plaintiff te«low> app«ai8« 
bars, llarelnaftar Qaill«i rlalntlff, a^alnet ths isfandant b«lo*, 
api)«n«nt her-y, h^rsloafter called jl«*f «n.ianl, to rf?ocv«f dnaaijaB 
for injur 1«9 sustained by plsintiff or* Prjbrwry 3, 2901?, *hll» 
hs was in tb« swiploy of t^e Isfdni^rt. At the Hms of hts in- 
jury hs wa« Rttemptln^j to oil th« bearinsre of ahaft®, s p»rt of 
tin ovt rhesd ooal conveyor in th9 fctf©e?r<«nt of h buil4lBg known aa 
tfc« firat Ration*! B&tik Putlrtinp; iti ChioagTO. ffct trial befcrs 
tfcs ccvrt 'iTii ^'ury riauita'i In ■» vsriiot of ^iO,000. Tbe tri's^i 
court ov«rru2«d dsfeniant*? ffottons for >i dir-solei ^rardiot anl a 
as* trial, v^ni entsrad jud^w^nt on the vftrdict. 

Th-'s cs.s?j 'S'ep.t to il'ie jury on nn amsnctsi ji<scl»railon 
consilstln';: of fl*^* ivnini?. '^ithovst h-^,Tfi !>J'3.iln% Uu^ avsfR«ftt8 of 
thsf 8«'?'5Tal 3iis4r.<l«d counts, the d(«o?^rat l<>« wvars tha S'';!;" loyerisnt 
of plaintiff to cldain boiler© s-nd oil cflrtain fraehln^ry on $. coal 
conveyor n«gllg:«ntly pl?iio«:^ In ^^ A^rk b'^s«:s4nt *it. -s gr«^.t el»v».~ 
ticn froR: thrt floor, clo9« tr!r ths ceiliuir. It !»? avt-rrftd th^^t 
th«r« -^fiis only '■^ narrc plstfor?*^ to !9tani upon «'h!sn nes-r it, itnd 
that th'? coal ccnv«yor wajs op«rst*vi by an al??ctric !«-Otor; tl(«t 
there wae no f^ean* of efeuttlnf; off ths ourrent without <i«i?c«ndins 
a, ladder and going to ?T)otb«r roorsi Ibot thar^ »^r« » nua*bi?r of 




wbae]^ snl ahtifta, ;^ii.1 upon on« of l^.«l•e shafts tr^ere ^as % safety 
collar, and It was n«ott8a&ry for ; lointiff to rut M« body 
aaitr this safety collar in porfornting hia iutld4 in ollirv<^ iiue 
KAcblnsryi that th«re wa« put In thle aajfsty ooHat «i met ecriB'v, 
or oap acr»'f, -^ftich frojeotsd t*o Innneis aVove the oo3 3ftr, and 
that paalntlff did not know of its «xl9t«no«; that th« .'J«»f ondant 
did knc f it ani •boulrt ha^ve notified hiw; tiir. I by r«a«on 
of th« au«t arut *ant of light, r.« dM not aoo it, s«Kt that whilt* 
in th« 2 -srforKcnc* of Ma ivitie«, unrtfi- lirsction of disf en-itint, ha 
wft« C8ugt:t by this aet »cr»w, )iih oloth«9 torn rro»^ Ms body nndi 
wound Arouad the 9h«ft», and t. li? l«?':s drat^B iiito ths fceahee of ths 
g«iirin^ and svt uf t . 

Briefly «tiit»3, tt« ftvilaisce whose that on one oc- 
oB^aion, the 8Rtur»l«Ly before the IKonday on ^Moh the plaintiff *a8 
injure'l, he was notified of hie proaclion to the ,'<^>»ltlon kno^n 
ae "aecond utility aen," and w»e tak^^n up th« lad^l-jr Residing to 
th« ns.rro* platfor* a.ion?;sid8 of the wheels ani ehs-fts of the 
iTiA^iohin^ry «hicfa -jperatt-i ths oyarh^Jid coal corrreyor, At tfist 
ti»r.€ tr;« irt»,cnin«ry ^ja not in <r<jtia>ni «k1 th« ilwlntift aaaiated 
one QueOenteley, r.ia l.-^.Tediet^ sup^srior, in rapdirin;: <50?fa of the 
buckets of t.'itt ccnvfiiy^'r. Hs than jpa* ths a-Afety co'!.)«r on th« 
shaft, but h« tstttifled th^t htt never a-s* tS-s oaj- saraw sn.T tnat 
hie attsnti R «»« not ojjlled to the cap eora* of to the fs?.ot th«t 
it projected feeyon-.l t--.^ safety collar. hsn t)-e rroohinery was in 

action, the safety coll«ir p,6 !-• feev^inty r*»'yo:;uliorif f'' p-inute; the 
oaj «crsj!« w>;tg of the 3*a« coler f*e tr.e ooilnr,- rusty, oily anrj 
dirty; the light •s^.g dSsI. !*nd tha ^ir full of duet 'fhen tha iMchin- 
ery »a« in operation. Pl.-'intlff wae eij&i^^el t'^ tn^ duty of oil- 
ing- tiii» con#ayor or B-^ituriay ^h«n it fas not in c'-araticn, and 
he 'was injured the follo^inr; lionJay i^h«»n it. «*^ ; ,s;.rirr operatisd, 
'iiid s.hile ha *-s8 ciiss-j^i in oilinj, it thn firs'^ li?^©. 

Th© «vld4noe t«ji''j« to eho^f' th^t his oloth^^a ^ere 
caught by th« oap 90T9.-^ -whilis he w»«j eng»f«d in l««nir-;: o'^*ir thst 



,: n'^:U \ 


i;art gf ti.i« maoiiinnry wh«rd2»«*l«'iy <'Oil«*-r *'^* looata4, in the dtle- 
obJirge of tb« duty of oiiing oertAia plniou» of the nidohlnery, anl 
tliat in doiag ao it wis n«a««0ary to t^rlo^ hl9 body clost to tb« 
•»fdty coll*r in ord«r to r«in3b ooae c>* tie pinions. Tfc9 collsr 
ftad soaring **r« \jnprot«ot«d an<i wnguaxcied in any frannar. And 
whll« holding hi* clothea aloee to his body in order to ur«v«nt 
tha» from oowlttii in oontaut with th« nraohinory, they ««r« caugbt 
by th« proJ«Gtla(; oap -scr** ?vn1 wouni *roun'! the 9haft, snd hie 
le^a ««re ara«n into th« «\s-Qbln%;ry. Tha e^i'enod aho^a tbdt he wa« 
oiling tii«tt i/8.rt of t> 9 meohinery in the pr«ciR« Raonsr ae direct- 
ed and ln«tru3ted by >. ia superior. Tb«re ^as only on» light of 
• igbt o&nciie j^oiB»r teurnin^ in th^ room; tb« bvlb fas coT«re^ 
with oo«i i\i»t ikM tb« ftir «a« fiill of duet. T^^ft sTidsnoe afcowa 
tJaat th« c»p »crs^, project iag ttom tt*9 *ar«ty coIiJir, cmilA not 
b» s«en i?t :9a tb« !!«iieblni»ry ti» in motion, 

Toluisint-jus briffe and s-rgusianta hs.^9 t.een filed by 
thf! raoi ectlvs partita, in whicb e&d-ny 'iuentiona is^any point* 
of IsT- are .ll«cy«»«(l. As in flf&ny of th« cointe of ia« argued 
in apgeUttBt'fci brief, there iu re .UeAsr**»«nt b«tw->«ji th« i.>«.r- 
tt«»s a*^ »« so net vlvubt tbeir correctn©©.; as quaeticwe of 1^^, 
but aa ^j not i^er, it nacess^fry 10 ai?3u«6 thes^ In ^at.*>U in thie 
opinion. They jr^iate suinly^ »o fsr ii.e they ^^ra appiicabls, to 
ti.« ^iueetion of neglic;:8nc« of the .jefeniarA afti tbe contributory 
n3»li,2«cc« ant asaviirad rlaV inijol'a-;:: in tisj rf-cor3. 

T;.s plaintiff w?»a Jis-ul iwei.ty-oh^ y»ar© of ''.jr^. H« 
«nt«5r«d %i.9 d»pXoym«ttt of 'i-tt en^?..n% ta Iss^rn to bs ^is engifta^r. 
lift Ilea worked in % miaic 9tor« an.l in e r"*^I a«*-^-e office as a 
boy, and tKia th*!! di«f«a-i*nt kn^«, Ea ^'aa cet to rork by the d«« 
fanisint oilin<? »»chinsry =^n1 tol^ thvt h:* ooul^ not b«^0v^8>s an 
•5ngir.d«r 'jatil he h^l 2a-'irne4 to clean loilsrs an?, dc^ tb? -flcrk 

in tba boilsr-rooRS, wbicb ifiuliile'l oiiinp; tb« eoisl conveyor. 
H« n^& not «3tploy«4 or ;;*id »a a {«eot;^nlc, or o n« ^;5p«ri enced in 
tb« buainaos, but *.e deooni utility sran. ^bilo it may be oral- 

'iiOG tki 


narlly conaiderri daa^crdtt* for « ptraon to b« n«»T r»pidily 
r»voltring iii»chin«ry, tbo oh««raot«r of tV e icwfthin^ry •jna the 
conditlona auyroudln^ the OMae t*ftve to 'io *ltfc the -lucetiona 
o£ «i3Mu;>;*>'J riek »nd oontributory nii^Iifenoe. 

A eafety ooIl»r i« eo r«cI«^ un4 Iskee it* nsKe froin 
the fi'Ot, tfi&t tiie U9&i of thw se'. earl's W vroteoteri. It te the kno^ledye of all jereons of r>rdlnsry Intel iicctjRoe 
XhK,\ vMa collar ie altvohed to t/;e shaft by s. eet «cr«w and if 
tke ooilbT ie H flat ya«, tii* hea'i of thw wet screw is li^. ely tu 
project, vhile If the coilstr lie r-rotflotel «::, flftn^ee projecting 
froiB one lo three Inchss up froa Ih* oollwr »o >s«* to f^ardl the 
he&4 of tf.e set ecr«»r, toereby K&kini^ it a eafety oollftr, it t« 
pre8Uff«?S 'roP: lt« orjaetruotion th^i' no ftex ecru"* projecta &boT« 
the perlf^h-sry of th«» ooliar; o^hdrwiee it oe?.«9« to funotlon as 
« eafety collar. 

In Colvuebis* Box * Lu»^>ifr Co. v. Thrown, IS?- Fed. Rep. 
4f6« decided ty th~ Ciroviit Oowrt of Arpewia of *J e Hlnth Oirouit, 
it -Bat* held proper to ©ho^ by evileno^ tbst u eafety ooller is to 
protect a set «er«'» fror catchinr in tre clothing ot OHtofcing; a.ny 
part of the»on ^orkiUv? urounl it. It ir, not neoeeeary to 
Lo'ic that ejxployors are l»ourjcJ to udn? m^ctsty or^Jare, but '*her» a 
fi&fety Goliiir i>e jvit i.ron r-. «}hsft, en;." "^-'^y^a have ». right to sx- 
peot it to ?-s jUftt wh^t it 4».;:c©i4re to Le,- & fe-sfet> ooii-r^r; ^--fui, 
if the hsaa of tr* t-et scrfe'^ cro^scte Ahcve it, it is r i1«fsct 
«hicf --.iii ^^:-. loye ssay h« exc^aea froir. esf&rchir.?' for, ar : if ©uch 
a lefect -ixists, an ewrployfi ''^o i.« no*, fercilit-r ^vitr ti-& r?^rti~ 
culdsr *oohip*!ry «fcovl.1 h* «*rri*-,i of its ;■, "hilt ion ir tti© resi- set. 

It *.i»e held in Cl-rk v. r^, F. I. a ?. r. P.. To., ?;S1 
111. 048, tb^it "Quwetiorne of ^asufred rlsV s-.n--i o-Nntr itutory Rs.jii« 

g-snoe ar.'j svi**6;tion« of ff.ct '•>r'iiniirily. TKsy only becoaa ^U'^etionB 

from . . 

of luT! Hidrsysthe f»^c1e »/;reitt%''.5 or qonoJosi^aiy prolan, thre is 

CO regaonafcla chance ttost rft^aoniatls R-ir.'is -'culi re.tch ;llffer'^nt 




The •ituatlon of thl» mitobln«ry, it« «nprot«oted con- 
dition, thft llg^ t n-ainttiinecj about th« iB8.ofcln'?ry, its operation 
fturrounsled «itL co*l dust to avch v^n extent th»t It wjsa difri- 
oult tu S9« tf* mnoMnery In op«r»tlon, th« t^afaty oollar, tri« 
proj«otln<7 set acrew, together -^itr, the ege of the plaintiff. Ma 
laok of knowleage anu want of experience,- '^r* 'ill fscte of oon- 
troillnj laportioce Ir --eighing the nueetlong of aaeuwed rlek anJ 
contributory neglljenoe. kmna ^ Froet Co. v, PtrachureH, 145 
111. 193i Keany ▼. Warr^xiette C^irent Co., ^AZ id. 3'r6. 

Aa otftt-id In the fenny caee, v.nier the oircvKetsncee 
(m4 6on:3itiong eurroun.llng Mie jl»lntlff at the time he »»# in- 
jured, >Tt9 *.r« vnabl« to eee to-^ it oa^n Is s&ll ais & iiwtter of 
I»w, or ,9 -A matter cf f-ct, tJ.vjt hs neglecte.l sny :Juty in fail- 
ing to 9«a tl.s set aorew, or thr^t he sasusei tLe risr ;f t.^^e pro- 
jcctlOf: eet acr**-, or thet -luty r«q» ir?.*^^ hlir to kno-r ti a c^ndit i:;n, 
Thtf «erv5nt t^eeuree the ordinary ris*£8 inclient to LI* empioy!t.snt, 
but %'(i9 i^w preeyppoeee th&t the Ran star hfe« rarforif*- ■*■'"*'« duties 
of cars, caution snl vljllance 'T^icl^ t^e Ih-* h/a plftc«cj upon birr-. 
"Ths sKpioye loee not, tak* tl e rle- of ianj-'er^ kno-i-n to the itas- 
ter sni unknown to hiw«eif ^ni ^hlcY* ooull r.ot h^ve baffn kno«i3 by 
biiTi fcy the exercl*?'? of r«ai«ion»bl« c-*r« ftni ^s'hlch coul 1 be avoidsd 
by the;t«r In t/ e ex«rcie« ;>f reeeojuable on hie part." 

In Cobb Chocolate roir-rsny v. ^nvlson, i 0"? III. 45.^, 
the flislutiff wr-3 injured by coc^ wj;«ela in pUln vi9«, but hs ?«»a3 
directe-.l by th« foves?-.8.n to -iflptf the Br.chlKsry a^ji hss nea -loing so 
when injured. A r«cov»ry wa* isufttsins'i on tie /ground tl;etthe 
questlore of Vao?ri.e4ge of th* linger srd cnntrifcutory negligonos 
ars --juijetiona tor tht j -ry, ■■■nA that -shen ordering a. a«rvsnt to 
perform. #ork ?^ith ^;fhich !§ 1» not f-n-iliar, it %■■* th« foreiv-en'a 
duty to t^ike reaaon&tle precaut ions for th? safety of ti.a eervi^ct. 
^hen Que^SentsIey, t:.9 vice princlp&i, sho'^ed tr« rl.iirtiff '"here 
end ho* to ^t-iniJ to oil t);*» b!*t*rin;5a, ha 'kn«f'- that the t-lj*intiff 
muBt ; l»cs Me erir; inrj oody ii««r th?s trojsoting cap aori?*, hvit 


Jji'.ii Li: i. 

1 ?a«i 

. t IT 





ne ild not t«ll IiIk tt wa» tb«r«. Ae «o*l.i in R^n£!:e 7. R«lff.b«tcher 
Forge 4 PoiUne Mill Co., 161 Hi. Aj ;.. au, in *rf<icL th« jaain- 
tiff *6a o»urlit in > set acr-ss*' nitsolhecl to an oldfaablonsd or 
oriinsiry collar: "It ♦»» ci^jariy within the provinc* of th« jury 
to osy Kb«ther a: p«JLl«« ■«»% jn>iilty of ?■ Inck of <,:ar« for hia own 
•e.f«ty in S'lOitin^ tbt ^sy h« did to oil t)ie 9);8ift in plnoft of 
one of tho»« «ugj««t#d b/ apptllar.l. It ^nn alao for t^.« j^iry 
to d«termin« iih«th«r «pp«n««'« clothing «*• 0ftU£>:t on t:L« net aoren 
or at anotbsr point en the revolving ahsft, ?»a ^uggewte-l by appJl- 
l«tnt, ani ae tbars 1« e^mpla evidence t-^ndinf^ to sho** it «»« caught 
on this eord«, '« they leuet h&ve founds euoh flndin^r vhould not be 

The record ahcw* th«^t the plaoa rhsre plaintiff was 
worViog at the time he *un» Injure/l •»".<? an ^xtren^ely dsr^eroua on« 
fcnii th.^t the foreman, «bo or-5*?red hia to io th« *orl<, kn^^* that 
it «a* si&ngeroua ;<na kne* what the plaintiff dirt not know,- that 
the eet acre* «a© projecting eo iar -^e to inorsftae th% viangera 
of the .-iaintiff'a <rork, p*rtioui»rly In rssching over tf * sa- 
ohioery for the Fur;,o'!« of oiling; it. It ^t.a clearly a juuatioD 
for tha jury t..> i^t-irrrdn^ ffh«t,h«r the rorai^an ■sxeroia'S;'? rfe'H^onabie 
and or.>in'*ry care to .ies that the place of ^orV t.j jrhlc!; h-s order- 
ed p^lntiff »*8 rtsruiOftAl ly B«f® l^^fore he put his ty »ork thtsrs, 
and Also «« to ^j-.-Rthar the plaint iff fen^^ff or should hr'<ve known 
th<} dssngev* to «' ich h« *?*.p exi-oaefl. li.iincde ??taei Oc. v. 
Ryaka, SOO lU. 3B0. It "n*« th« -ief^n i!><nt 'a duty to have rsrned 
ths :. iaintiff of tie projecting: set acr«« in th« s-^fety collsr. 
That mH.s &. j&nger ^monir »ll thi? l&ngere of thf^ situation •^hicls 
the ri&intiff did not kno*, «ri he h^i « right to i'«ly uron th« 
Kaater'e ooarllanee -'^ith the iuty impose 1 upon hi(r by la# in the 
Abaence of notice to tha contrary, wnl h^ h;-ri a ri.ght to oonolude 

that th*» diingere to srhic.' he -^tr'.^-, axvoee4 ^ers only the obyloua 
iangara f v os %h^ 'liaohinsyy T^hich he knes: -^ae there. It; vcss a 

ia-tent i«faot which, eo fsir 0:5 tt-.s reccrl ahoAs, ti.s l&intiff had 

AC'i.' iiiMi^X 


no opportunity i' diaoorot, nn.i he ehoul1« thersfore« bavo been 
warned of ll. ^onka Pio*. Cowl * ^o)r« Co. v. Thll, ?!S« m. 333. 

Upon ft study of th«» «vi'S«ac« smd tie briefs and «r- 
gu»ent« of oouineel ^9 »re of the o.t Inlon that the material aver- 
ccsDte of tha declaration »r« eust.-j inel ty th* «Tidence *«n.i proofe, 
end we flni no eound rei»«on in th« record far disturbing the yer- 
•lict of the Jury on the werite. 

It 1«, however, ur,3;ed th&t th« tri»l court oomwitted 
revereibie error in pernsitting the plaintiff to introduce tsati- 
Btcny tandingj to prors tbat there *e o not »ny coliare in the 
wliole buildin<j, -vhere this tpfeobinery ifrta iooat-nci, like th* ooliar 
in vtu^etion, exoept on the coal conveyor^ ^ui tl:?t it •*«*« net nsc- 
eaeery th?-t the «et ©ere? ext«nd Ueyond ths periphery of the col- 
lar in ur.l^r to firmly uttsch thft cull».r to the «hsift. Ani it ia 
further urged that th<* trie! co- rt comfitted reversible error in 
jNirBlitin^' the plaintiff to prov^ i;.> t th* '1«feivi«nt rawoved the 
set tioraf coKvi'^-ine J of !*ft«r tJ.* dcci'l'^nt. Thsae qu^etiona are 
ar^utsd in the Iriefa 'tnd were apeolu.lly d*«lt upon in orAl argu- 

Ttfc '-ueatlon put to Xhf vitnsac C\iefi«ntsl«y '-^ to 
■fhethsr .>r n<^X *Ji«re "sr* other esf«ty coliara liV* the one In 
question in the building:, evi1*!ntiy -nsn not to find nui if they 
had prcjectini^; set ^cre'^sj in thsff, or to Iny tb«s foundation for 
the al^ift tht-t it si^fc na^liiTence to ues thet?., or to coi»f 4r« tJies! 
with any other kitvl cf cr>ll-,r, bvt to >jbo-^ wh?t the -sitrje*e' know- 
leds* ffse 5^6 to tJ « u.-4« of aafsty coi.&tn, H=s ^ins'^er «*a, "^hy, 
I have not 8«*r4 th«m any i, laos ■al'se nbout there." The uj.-s^er 
wati h;'rfir.ieB8 in thie crxse, sr.d it '.& s not revar v-iible arr.r 1 • rs- 
'iuira U,8 «itRee« t.> ana«ar. It ;il-j no*; iffeot the question of 

Tbe trial oourt di-i not ooTPit r»Vi*r sif.® «rror in 
Asking the "itneea Lahn wJi^th-.r or not it *&& nsceaaary tij&t tie 



a«t iiGre- •xttnd bayonl t>i« periphery of th« aaf aty oollar In 

ord«r to firic7y attaoh tlm collar to t):^ ahaft. In Colunsbia 

Box A Lu».ber Co, v, Pro*n, i»upr .>^ ©vi.ienc* -seifv t':>ken »a to thft 

offic« vf a »«.f«ty collar, -md the witnaea testified tiat th« 

purpcas of s aafdty ooll*r la to protect a person wMle worklnjj 

n»w a aet sore» from oomlng in contact '.It}. It, tind tlr. t when 

» aet !<icT«'' i« rropftrly «dju9t«rt to « aefaty collar ther* ie no 

danger in working oloae to it. In this c^ae h dupliowte of Ui« 

safety ooIIvt =»?ee offered in evl.:3enc« eni 'rae Isfore ti-e jury, 

^ben the jury eft^ tf.e coll&r an^^ tie sore* th«y c-juli determine 

as *«ell i6 «nybo<Jy whether it ^ts nsceseary tlif*t t},8 screw ehcuid 

project beyond the ooner. It "*sb so :9eir-«vi*ient tlr^t it nsad 

not ^jrojeot, th?..t evidence on tb;it jsubjeot would not le rev^reibie 

error, if it was otfeer-^iee in^^vlnvlealtla. 

If the *icJif.i*i»ion of this t9iititT,ony -^sts arror, it was 

jMide hsrarleaa by the 25th int?itrvction glv^n t't the request of 

defendant, in ^r^lch the court a:-.>iri: 

• • • •rftTsncI^rt, »t »nd before tie ti«r.e of the in- 
jury to the i.iftintiff, h^i the right to wae auoh <3«vio83 snd 
equii-^*r.t on it*; en-. i oonvssyor as it &&'» fit to use, even 
thourh euoh Isvice? &ni equlp^;«Rt •?»*?« in Hn« of tb«R«t«lv«3 
aungercue. Ths sr.ere f<JCt th;. t the a«£ihlnf?ry at J:h«5 plscs 
wb^re pl$^ititxft -vae ^'or^inj; at t!;«« tls?e he '■•ae hurt ■«?&» 
dsng'^roua 'Soeg 3iot antltls the : laintiff to r«eov«r in this 
V3&.89. The la* ^.U'^ not require th'e i^fen'Jant to furnish, use 
s-ni op<fr«it9 s conveyor •^'ith uny p^rtiouli+r makt or styl« of 
set nov:'^ or equir^s^'^nt." ♦ * * 

KTorr, ».n »X)ftR.infttion of the r'soor'!, it ^\ i: i. tsa^t q t(:».t no 

evilonc** as introiuoei or ^xttampted to re intrn^luce! tsniin;c to 

ehs)-^ th«.t the ilefsn'rtnt r«ifedi«1 or sttefi^ptel to rap:«)>;iy ■ ny 8up- 

poeed i fact In tf-.<» cs-n-^truot ion 'f th* rrKohine 'i^^ftsr tha injury. 

Plstintlff l.^rou^ht Into court ^ s^cfety oonar nnd s c».p sors'^ 

«l.loh he olf^'imsri to fc- :-reoia«> iurllcates of t.^e aftfety collar 

»nd oaf. sore* trtu oi4W®-»t? the acci.i<*nt. For %\,n fur'oae of ivien- 

tifyinjj thiQ aet «ere^ *h* ?fltne««*i rwith ff^a p«srmit*.f"3 to trestify 

that he ea-w th« «et acre-" in tr« ahisft rhe next corning &ftsr iha 

Acolier.t before t.'^e «*ichlne -^ite* r-vjt in o-.sration, s-nd tr:at t« toid 




. ■■If 


•in «aploy«, Brooke, to t»v« it out. TM? »'aa f r the purpo»« of 
showtnf? thait Brooka did t»k« it out »« dir?fOt«d, and that h« took 
the »et «or9« to ^'aslth so that he c >ul<5 tuatify th*»t th» one of- 
fered in erlienooi »»« preolaely li)f«» It.e on^ trtftt wai» in the col- 
lar At xt.9 tlree of the aooiient. ^mlth testified, without b«lng 
asked to do eo, thfct I.9 directed Brooka to tuke thl« set acre.* 
out and replace it, but ttie court atruuk out this evidence *nA 
inetruoted tbe jury not to oonaider it, although thfct in Itself 
^oull not have been error a» it did not t«nd to eho* any sit«rr*- 
tlm in tJie QAcbln-ry. H» jul^^ht heve taken it out to uee In »vi- 
denoe, or fc^r ao(t« otli«r p-ur o<»e, and huve rspliaoed it with anotbsr 
preoieely 2ik« it. Br^ioks ssaid that the »Air.« aore'f »»3 thsr« lyio 
weeks after the «ocid«nt, ani th-'i he re*»ov«d th- oap screw; th?it 
he h«a it In hits J.-^nda after refr.cval, &n1 he identified plaintiff** 
Fxhibit H' a« beins: s ap «crew preeissly like th« one thtKt »as in 
the colisr both before and after the aooiletn, except th.!it the on« 
in the ool'.br '»s» covered -with oil, gT»8»« ^'^r*:" ooal duat, »nd Fx- 
hitit V «faa bright ond ol«i?n. 

The vltnee* P«-lth oalisd for th* rl^intiff waa tr.s 
d-^fendaat'a first enrin^er. '?'h*n sho^n the ooller proluced by 
plHintiff, fee identified it se bfjlnr^ a durlioj*t«» of !?:« collar 
that »*«« on the efc&ft »t t'-.« lirr.** of th^s injury. Aa to ths cap 
ecrs--?, !.« t*stiriei it rrojected from t«o to fvo and ore-tsjiif 
inchea tobov** this i-sriphery of th9 collar, and thst he *vould krsow 
a «or«w li«^ It if he 3At it. "^tifn ths ^itrseas «aa fiskftd if 
plaintiffs Tssbibit c' v^b 11><« th"? s^t .3cr<»'^ in th» 8h»ft at the 
lime of tf'.e injury, objootion «&.a ir;.-^dc the.t it ^lis not sho'^n or 
cksniKed that ti.« oor«\* cxhlbltei wa© the ons tr;«t '^fa® In ther'S? 
the next. Tornln-^ after the ^socl '-'!^ nt, or th'-t it vi'an U-a one that 
«»G on the coHsr »t tre tlwe "i? tbi? &ccid«nt, Th* -^itntsaa wsna 
then Aeked to a"»t« if he |new "^h-it beoMtve of the ca aorew that 
he isaw th-te t>^ e next morning, an^l he a'^tsd t*!».l he dir*ot,»»d a 
»'.»n bv tJ-.e n^<}:a of Brnok^ to taV* It out snd put in a. e^l gcrs^. 



^-irftT* ^tX-' "* -« 

ro »*?t 

■ I 




Thd court allowed th'»tijp«krt or th« an»'*ar which 'Ur«ct«id ao»9«)n« 
to r«jrove ti.« aare« to at^nd but »trucn out v>» tnlimc©. Th« 
»itr.««a then tt«tlfi«'1 th8»t the acrs* eto»n him, jlf^lntiff •« 
Exhibit £, «»» juet iika ti e one thivt w«*b in t!)« oolifex th« next 
ftorninf afttr th« aocici«nt. On oro84-«*ii*n!in»tl<,>a, the ■/'Itne®* 
•tatesi tLat h« told Brooka to ^fft tha <3et »cre^? and h.4 '«n«^? that 
Brookft did got iti that h« did not g<^ up «ith hi*, out ti-»t 
Brooks tirought it to th« •hop to th« ■■♦ltn«a«. Ti-:« -itneas s^^l^J 
ha L4ui no racol.l«ction of .Isolng th« •cr«w jmynrharo but Um% 
Brookt r«|-ort9l to hiff. that le i>ut it 8o»t<»wh«r«, .nrid aaid *I 
would not b« «jur« tnat I ''snt up th9r« ini 8e«ii that he put that 
Oftp torew ba-ck." The inferanoe f^or;^ thi« t««ti?F':>ny la that 
Bmllh had Brook a tafc« the oar sere* out, trins: -It lo-wn snd «3ho^ 
it to hiffl, and tolf! hi!B to ^o &nJ put it back. 

Tfi*4 s^'itnasa "ox, •'*.noth«c stpjioye of the fi«feB;1ftnt, aaw 
8 88t. flcre« in thie ooil^r whan he ♦fs.a st tb« ar-iohin^ry for alx 
wesk^ or t-fo Kontha bafvors the ;v*(jciril7-nt. He ■■^■•^e saVsd t^? de- 
scribe ih« e«t iscrs* anvi hd tsettfiSil ^-itri r^ifs/enoe to >:0-lntiff*s 
Fxhlblt rt, a^yin?!; th';t th* 3or«T th^t h« s'o.?^ in t^e ff.f^chiosry w&» 
like ti!»t, «xoept that Exhibit :? •sa.a 'ortijht i<.r\-^ m-" in 0f.:-«ar&nc«; 
that h* ma 4* no mea»ure?fisnt8. 

Brookis tfts.'jtiriftd tf-^a i^hsn he »a53 up -^hare tii® ffacbi- 
nsfy wiss, t^'i'o «^"3ki9 sftdr ths aoollent, the «Hr;s; set dcrs?"/ '^as in 
ihs &.-,c:iii.oe tb-.t vm& in it uefore it.& accilsnt. H'- furth^jr tes- 
tified th.-it he removed it -^n^ h»'1 it in LIr h^^n-ie, (in.3 that it «a& 
like plaintiff*^ Exhibit ^?, exc^^ft th=-'t it ^a« bright; tr-tit Xi wa© 
w fuety c-i-r scr--S'? sni r.<.d oil, gTsa<9« and co^'l iu.«t on it. 

On thisi a.n-l other sivllisno^, the col'i'ir nnd cap ®crr», 
identified b/ tr,.^ witnasaae "a tji^An^ sxaotly li'i;i?tho colI».r ani 
Qi*.p ecrew in the fn^chin* -U th^ tima of th» i^ocii-^nt, ^sre ad- 
mit t«d in «vii-?ac«. It a»y cl^ar fr^-s' trir? rscorvJ, -.■^e think, thet 
tha raaoval of Ui» owf »Gr«t* s^y alnr^ay for tha pvjrpos* of en- 
abling th's -^itnesisft© t) teetify ^itr r*!ifftr*nce to fxhibits 1 &na 


•. li- 



S« ftt mod*iH or -iu] liost8« of th« oollar and oh;- aorew on ria- 
f •nia.nt ' s (ioal conveyor tit the Hire of t^^e ln^ur>« ^ind that the 
»»l(1«*nc«, -fJidn It -vi'S iniro-i^iOftw, »';>» axyreoiuy linr.ltedi to the 
purpoas cf Identification, snii th».i it wfaM not ofterad or r«c«i»si 
for ti;« f.i:rpce« of froviaet tk«t ttie «et «cr«f *iee r9t»,o*-eci after 
tlie acci;l'.'nt for it,t pufvo** '^^ b^'inip; r«{. l«.o«r.i by another screw, 
or for thij icurr-ostt of proving th&t t3iiifexig«» ani r«i.&ir§ '^srs irsicle 
Aft«r tl<« &.cyi1e»t, ana tf.e jury *et<j not likely to fr.isunderstitndi 
tii« purfoee for «?iich it «*»« intrcciuced. *e do not, t/.ink the »d- 
siieeion of tr*« t9»ti«v>ny «»» rcvajrsltU arrvr. Tity of 7ayIorvili« 
r, Stafford, 1S3 111. 288; JCatfc v. Ft«t ?t. Loul» * Puburb^n Ry. 
Co., S^^' III. 1^6. 

*a do not think that the {iiu^iHsion of th« froisl ol ih« 
collar i^nc projecting c»-j «cr«'^ ^*9 r«varelbls isrrcr, Penn. Co»l 
Co. V. Keliy, 156 III. 9; L. 1?:. * '^. f. P. Co. *. ^'il&on, im 111. 

In revi«8rfin£r tr.4 ^hol« rsoord «8 f ini no rever»ir^le 
«rror tReraln. Th«3 ju^i.rm«nt ia affirmed. 


Wr. Jv?tlo« Clark took no pnrt in tf:e oonslrieraticr; of csaft. 




ctofcer fevr 

''' ^-12, u 


360 - l^eb7 



k^inrsk FCBVIDT, 

»ir'^ rop?r lu? iwru^AMcr Com- 


Cn Avr»fe0i of 
s% .*;>«» il ant,, 


18 4I.A. 15 





) I pp? jiT, fn( 

0>.» flFCUIT 

Th* Ordar of Coluwblsn ?nlg-l-t«, ^ fr«3t ^rneta Jn«ura»c« 
«ocl«t>, file-} itu clli. of int«rpl«*>i?r to ietsripins the conflict- 

'^aaiK*!, to the »\im of money <i*lmiti$i to b$ ■^vs uwon a bensfit 
oertifioHt« lasued to Jokir Rchmiit, hiiet-nl of A'SHnl** Schiridt, 

ui-yn ti.8 p«:yif?«nt into court "^y th* Orisr of Colujician JCnlght* of 
the iB(>iiQy in controTsrey, rhM Crd'^.r, or gociety, ^«>4 llwrriaiiSvi 

out of the caURA* 



?,ub»« jusntly, th« Jfftw torK I if 9 InS'Jranc* Co, i'liad 
it» \iill of iiit4;rpl»&d.«r -ftjjHlnst km^n&Sk Soijaidt ami Kiiim:^ »at«el 
A« d[9f«Bd.»«t t, *nd upijn *n Interlocutory 'Ssor«ft^ tbe n«t eu?r, 'sf 
t883.67j adB5ltt«'t to fcs nue trorc this B-»s York Lifa lD«\i?fenetj Co, 
on its polioy, '•a* paid into court, »*a>l thn dafendan** thsreln 
wjrs ords fed to lnt«rplKrt4, 

By BtipulJ^Uloa »^»i orcier« cf aoiirt tt-.e Oitse© ^&T9 
coasoii-iatjd tor hwa-rlns both in th-i *,rlftl c-mrt »,K£t tnle ccwrt. 

It apr,it?ir0 froir. tlid -svi-ioncs thnt afeortiy &.fter the 
»»rria5« of John .^ahsiiilt -^Ri AmandR J^ohmldt, tb« appellaot in both 
08s«a^ John Potimldlt, ut tt,« r^cpiflat cf hie -ifs, Ai'^exjdsi ScJisf.ldt, 
b«caiT;9 a D«K.bRr of D«t«y Loig*, a ««bi3MlnatiS birancii:* of the Order 
of ColuffbiHB Xnight«, und on ^tje K-t-out B*ae»st)er ??B, IS09, the Order 
leauftr: it;^ benefit otitlf loJ8t« iBe^rlng the llfs cf s^id Jfohn 
Sebaidt in th^ ris; of flOOO, to b« pfty-ais Ik tht^ «tefit of hit-; 
cl«ath to hi« Tife, ^.w.9^v-3» P.ci3i*i7t, a«fti;'5n«t-s<l Ifi the certificate 
«f fcie bensf icii^ry. Prior to th« tia« of e^aSiias' ap; lieatio/i for 
«gid ineuranc*^ SR'.' tbe i&«\>»r>.Oi' of t' « osrtif ic^t.";:, John Sohit.idt, 
llfeo «ra'* £-t th« liar.t ^Ithoxjt «t<t.'-dy yrp-ployasxit sx;! j^ossssesii no 
i?«f?.ne, or r&ry »:«s{?r8 «f?:''.?;!&^ "-^fcf!! ■« ;:T«osri'-j& inCij'i?:'^:, ■B-srtstlly 
agreed *rith hiz =:tfe, A^aa-Ui F^c^^mi-it, tJi-rtt h^ -.^oul.l ;5oiri t/^a 
Orler a.K'3 «f;-Iy for th« bsP'jf it ic«\iT:5:oo« in he-r f '/ ;r ^-ith ti^s 
uader»*.andln.'T tb-it oi;,t ot h^-r ■j*jp'-'rat<s ;i;9?iria «ri? siarsiiRv^^s atv« 
wouia ray th5 3x;>eti«9e «.? hia joining '♦n-i oTi^t---; iriin<'j th-s insuri^rjoa, 
and wc»jld alfo rrovi.le and pay th« Xntv.r^ 'i\W9 -Ani aasessiBS^Jts of 
tiie ord<-i^r to keep th^^ i.-isur^ino!;! 1^ foto^ nti^l sffect, iiw% that ths 
ift«uri^RG« so tn^en out ?ihow3..i 'fo« ar^d. rr>mxin Jv«r prop'^rty. 

The avl?!.ar.;';3 sho"?s th*!. t Ajt.*«.ndif«( ^ohjr.i'11.- bad *s?irns4 
ftnd ««,tr«d thro\).?jh «!i5Pi?)yjr*r.t ?>3 ?* :f.a'''«ai>*ic e':ir^''-nt, prior to har 
»&rrift0,s, about fSOO, •■>M.t fcaoav-if-a^ cf h<ir bwfsbrnd*^ lack 01' ®as- 
r,loyK-»nt, aths to^y. .Joir.««tio ctsr^ioe ;^-fter *l;i?ir r.?K--ris{r« -'^^ J'^"- 
siained ftiiso«l c^natantiy so *!»:pioy«d wp ^o kM^zx, i'lO, «arcin3 



tttt »if«r^ijj:« of froit f46 ta S.iO a .'•onth during; the tsid period. 

la afjC'->)r-Aa»s» -^ith h*r sscr««jis»at with h-ix Uuthand 
Aasj».n.lJ* '^cfcfTJidt f5;«v« h-^r hwebsni (»»5nay to pay for >\i« 3tamfc»r»hip 
Ifii th* Order ^nd for th« ta^tln^? «^ut oC tfe» i:-«iift«f it o«rtif icwti*, 
AOi fioE. tljRt tiwM until i=i-bcut Jun^s, 1910, Ama,«.'5fe ftohraidt pall 
bij iusj* .■in'\ a««t»a»T!.«nt? to the loija ow^ of t'nr eapfereta funds 
t»a<l oirQlntt*. S'fclle tte«y reell««-l its the v«yt p»:n of ChlcGgo, 
ni**»r \.h& s-.sstla^ j.i«r.oe of tf;« iolgs, <jJif: 5av« h»,r ir-c-ri^y to Jo^n 
P<Jh«ldt frosi tl«« to iln**, «»o h* ««Bt to the 1(5%« w«srttl«j5rft, to 
p»y the Jut* sBd tt««ee«r9T^te, ^h«n the Sch:sldt« rsova:? to tfca 
•Oiith ol.l« of 1.h« city, *i4B »Tr«.»^(rS ^Itfc ."^abfitldt »fc clatssr, Fm»^. 
Katscsl, 4p?.*ll>-.e, th«a IWlns ann^r th.? ^vOi^^s, to hnrg hsr advisnoa 
or o«iUiia to bt pai^ thts flue« ani nsfteajs^sftntq At th'^ir p?«ri9'lloal 
<, -ID"', fee ?4l.i»bur»9 Ifiutm )i'^.tze'i for mich fi:1vt-r.coa at con- 
▼«nl«ot periods, troR5 ♦•■ty tn four ti,iR«!;a ascfc ye^r. 

Shortly -^ft*r .^J'spieKbisr, 7^05, «».l<i Jfchr. BcJaaidt 
a;5sin, St the r6"<uw»t oi' hi« ^ife, /cci^Rd.'^ ??c^^J:i^t, «l^<?d hj-u? 
dvllvei-fid to ti:^ !?««? Y'-jr*! I.ii'e Insn.'rri^nc?' C^^rsp^.tiy ir. ar client ion 
for ?100G Irioureric© upon frU tifa, srr< > policy f-r thf.t »»ir. on 
hl« Ili'e v*.6 l»su8:i by t^-.K gv>!»"V'Afiy rur*^ Ife^ypto^ on or *)>'JOV.t 
BfoT«inb«r 3, lt<Og. Th.i» f/oligy ■.^as ais;!??i"iee r^.j^-hl*t, in cat'.f of 
hi« it'-.Xh, t-3 Iil*> sifs, A<ii0f>,-;i9 ScT'.fUt, «t:.',^ 's--';* n%irf.»?.i 'n? benefi- 
ciary tu^raifc. t^t^r-^ t^klf^ >mi'i s-olicv, ^■■'hn ^or-^niiii vert->-aiy 
s-grcdd '^'Ith -5Ai.a /.i?-.aiG-.:is -'tihfr.idt io so^ly for tha i.-^v^sut'^ncs in 
hor f'<t?or u;.;r.>n ti;» s*;ne 'iR'l»r«i;'i.«jdim: ?;is it) anwa of in® ^«»R«fit 

K<it7.ely^ th-'..t st*i>-?. ^!r>i»d». f^cr-wilut ^i-ioul4, ou? of h'-ir a'^m p-eana '-na 
earnlBss, pay 'be pxc^r-duee Ihwf-^.fyr a«a kt^ep tti6 >v:-'ta in fojros, 
sal ttvLt <4hsr choi;:!-2 fc.-a an^ r*:^:friw th« be.nef lolc*"ry uiii?«r *h» po:i icy 
ne her o»;4 ^'roptrty, I« i,uf e\is<.rv5e of t,*!4$ xv^rif^/tsixt , Ar^v^mt'* 

pr«ii5iui» on tr.« Sep YorV. tlTs Ineur^iscs Company .joHcy, and alao 

&i: 9-.bat).i««nt ytarly prsalajsa *.h«r»oa, aac^ptiuj th« l?^«t annual 

to p8.y ia d\i6 otits? •« at this? Chio«'.g-o offiots of thj ooiapAny, i^ut 
tb«rd lfe«»rjae'j.» vhna *h« irj»;it to pay it th?^t th-a preffliWiW he a fre* 
vlouftly t eo ifel<3 by Aw^jther rtreon, »t th« iiw.e to her unk«o«a, 
Jotn PchiciU 4ellv®reo to Ai?Mi4a "Schmidt, r.4% wife, 
t:ic yrisir.ii r.sneflt cftrtiJficto o? i^«! Or^er ->? f-'ol^Jtmblari Kaighta 
at the ti,re Gi' ix a it»*\x&i\<:;t in Ifi^iSi »«•.*. the pgeat of th« ?««••? York 
Lil"6 I;usur!;nce Ccftirany i«2iv«r«.l the insurmncte policy to h^x at 
thy tiJB*; of it© l93u&nc« in J!r\ynmb»T, 1^05, Botir. inAtruiceiita 
w«r« kstpt by A«>«n<S«. TohKl^t frorc tJ.^ tls:'® rif tt:elr r?Rpectii»6 
4*«rio8 to hsr in h-^r qi^vi e»pi»rftte mustody, vjnd#r lock an«l 
key ia the drawer oi a bu^sftu 1« hy? h'>m«, hs^r hw«bi='n^ not b$i»g 
Ififoraad *ii<5rs «he J(«pt the key. Th^ certificate ana f oiloy so 
r««^ijiad In her oustody for y»^r» wrttii th«y ^••.re «"ostr8.ot«d by 
»0«soa« Xrorr. the laoKscl di^a^ser wherss th«y f«r« k«>-t, at «off:e tiir.n 
aiaxiag a. psria.t oi' fib'^u* t»ir»« ^^^fca In A.u^ruat, 1910, *hi3e kmandu. 
Schs^l'Jtt ■ 'xbas&X froa fc«r horn*, o^jntia'^i "ty 113 «««.«« in a hoe- 
tital, Sae '^'•s cov ir%>=.»;a of '='.34 3 i'i n;?t •.1li5cov*.r xn^ nh^iiraciion 
of t^isisss r.a;>«*r9 iron r#r iock^a cJTJ*«er until A^-^^wt ''S, 3010, 

place, st;8 fouBd t^*t th« pii;ere ha' dlai- r.e»->r<j!l, ?». it^ou^h trie 
'S.xun^i rsfj-.aiasd iotts«j-J, A-tstsnaa?'. BohPti'il then t^ik«*<^ t.-"> h!2r hue- 
■"ostnd iti ij^'-^rd to %hi*, 'out «e.^ py -w^aifesi , up^iju o*;,j«ctlori by 
©ouBssi Tor »i-:;ei 4»<*si, .Voa i^iii.tin? tfc« ooaverss !,!<:>«, 

"i1i« uiaaoflii:-s»'iicl«4 t«»'»i«;oay In t^.s x^cori ?h<5W8 th&.t 

uae of 
Johr» ?:.;-Uii.l^v fcscaff.y a^adictsa to &xc3s«4ve^intoxicallllg: f^rmk smd 

Aari hfetituJii virvi-nka-rd auria-t tb© i:-3t tjir©6 y-sjsre' of i-l!? 'ilfe* 

He «2S* tyr.fta to Dwigltt, Ixlia.- is, i^ "i-u-oji, i.«01', to t«ik% tha 

•Keel-ay euj** fwr druukeRnefK, tojt it {.a-ovui iiwffsGtDsl «sx- 

a«pt for gotii' a/ X'iv*i ftOf.ib» ut%i:x hif r^tura to Chicsfw about 

n}iil, I£'i,^f, Ke thsr««.ft*f<r van.', on fr«'0,uv;nr irv;jr*s4;t; spxfette <&n^^ 

«•• »rr6«t«4 ur'>n dlverr, ncc^tionti f-»r diclwrMn^ the P'?&ce 'shils 
<lr\iB}(, '^hili u&l«r tlit lBflu«r0« of lliquor^ ir:e *»e .1sw§'«ro«« 
Sill! qaarr«lfO«« anfl -^ct^d IJiktt an lA^ftne ftiraon, ^ni dl'l cot Know 
what h« wft« doix^ or tj>« coneequdnc^ft ftf J ifi ao^i;. On Pvnday, 
8eptepb*r 4^ 1,910, while In an range eauised by exce8«iv» 
latoxlc'c'iile, f-nd during onfl of icla irunlcen «i?.Te.«o, he struck, 
kicked, dragged abcoit, ^v^ otharvrle* Baitreftted hi* ^ife who was 
•iok s(»t the time, o«ill9d h«r viis »**.««&, thre»l*n9c; to hill her, 
thr«te- » knlf«6 5*t liev, thran h«r out of hyr hwm« into tha street 
■^bile «L8 wa.« ellg-htly cl*d, &.na Amanda Poh»;idt vafc ti;.)!i*c a^ay 
by frier.'? a, and en t-bfet dfcy ti^iey tepa-rstsd. On Jiricu'^ry S£',1911, 
her hvcbnnd, Jobn Sch»iat, <jc»?ritt«i atdcivde. 

Prior to »a>1 »! th« time of h-sr eipar^.ticR froK nsr 
fcwtb'.ind, Fepterb^r 4, I^I'IO, /.-jiar/ds Scheldt dlfi not kao*-; or "i&arn 
of the wi,«r«stouts of t.-?T bensfit certificate tsn.-: her policy ia 
tfc« Ordsr of Coluffiljiarj Kfii-th*? »nd the N*^.?? York Life Inearsnos Co,, 
nor di2 shs tscoree a^arfs of Ih^ &lisg?d onacge of the tanef iclftry 
in the benefit aertif i-jat* of the, Coiv --nbia*! Knirhta to !?Qhmi'it*8 
nephft*, rirssr M%t?Ql, =ip-:9llee, in th^ Coluaibian Xnigfcts C4«©, nor 
of the ftll's^ed tre«nf«r -.if th« ii«tir:-tno9 i.>j:.ioy af tlia H*>-^ Ycr>: 
Life Insvjrai?':;;? Coff^s .ur? to a?iid ?rjr;';.i' ?/3.t:'t:i, '^ho '»;<.<& a slater of 
John Poh?5idt, &nd ^,pv«i^, ee in tt;ii E-^-? T^ik Lira Ii';4W>.nc& Cos-pany 
c&ee, umtli ^t th<? t iwe a.R;-' c-l* ce of tbfc h4-'.-Unf: oC ths coroner's 
iKq\;e»t on t.h? ^.:-)dy of Jf^ha CchR^l'Jt, , deceai^s, ifv-:jr '"iS, 
i"t*li. iit thrii *.ln-ft AKi plaetr 1^: rr^a ftgteil by or;^ ffstAUiiind 
»»t»el, hv«tvin^ c-f Tr,sB V»ts-fl,?'.i>.^- f^thsr cf sritii«s ^;s.t;;«I, E*pi-si.- 
ie«ip, tni-.t his son 'fnS rlf& hsl b^ffits rs®;eotjrely aasfcir/u^t^^d a® 
oenefio lories in Xis?n of ,»r.r.*l Jpct^t ^ Ac.-^rrii* ?5ch.ridT, in tr.t bsn?- 
fit osrtific&te ^'11-: iti tt,e }.,Tin'p'-'.t5^?« policy irj f;u*stiori. 

By r?"8.«or. of tr* «\;icl*? of .Johr r?ch-'»i'it, rfcich is »r 
"•.'Jrritted f-^-st in xhn of vs, ^n'- uciftt- t,l« l^y-l-r-^e w' tJ-e Ordar of 
Colu«iti;-*n Knishtw, tJi« ine: r^^tios Gi«i(t due uncier tns b«p*fit csr- 


tifio«'.t« of S3l5 Or'H'it •^■'itt relucfS to t^« wrt of ftCO. By tte 
Intarlooutory '1«cr«e la the C<ilu9iV;4«n JCnisht* cs.**, th* m^ii 
•Vi« of f.VK>, l«8t fll.SO •Uew^d for *©i4citor'« f%jee -rria ocat*, 
free petsl Into ooyrt. 

irb« tri^il court ent^re^ a d^orea in the oaas filed by 
tfes OrdpT of Cc>iui/ti%n ICixl^btgi, finding tr.-Ht A»an:l'A ?jatesii4t, 
«ipr«3'aEt, fcaa no right, titlt cl«l!»i cr iati&f^at In tf;:£ r;*a»fiv 
cartiflcitea ii?ue<! by th«; or4«r Mi<i tJ*ai tiers v^.& no ISndin^ 
Rgr«efrent bet'»6«n iSt^ndA 0c^«^cit «.ko' John PctimlcJt »8g«irding the 
ten#fit certificate or tla« fuui payall© thtraund^r, &c1 tlist 
9ppe^l«s, ITljrsr Vst3?«l, •»»'\n %).» «:le l';sa*!f lolJury ua'Uy the bsns» 
fit certificats, 'in'i a'Tftrdlns tbft f\m3 f'fi-1 into ocart to hijs. 
The court ai»o «nt«r«A s decree in lh« eaJ6« fil«d by th-j» U^-^ York 
Mfe In»ttr%?iCfs f^ompeny, fimling ihe-.X th« l-amef icli'-ry in th« 
polioy «^ais Xft^fuily»4 In f&.ror &f roprvt-Iiec, tCm&a ll&t£:el, 
ftodtthat app93,3?.nt, Awans^a Prskwlcft, feai rt> ?igh.t^ titlfe or iri- 
tsrgft in ths noSloy, rsr th® fund. p!-ld into oourt thsireuudar, 
and, %ward.i>jg th*- fr>,n'.5. to Ffsrvs l^'.<t»<ai. 

It Jss th^ ^fittled Ift^* cf tfci* iiUitn th«t v;UlIe i;. cer- 
tificate lik« tto one In qu*«»*'i'^^i ■^*'- ^'•"''*'' ^^aijjrittlij st ;:&.«■/, all 
V-snefioial irl?sro3t ffc^-r^tK ^ay be 'ir'^msf^rrefl in e^ivityi sii.4 
th-at ficjultsTbl* rig^hts rpiiy \<e Hxc'i^iir^u in <i t'^r.^jifit cisriiricsitii 
which will t*? arforcs'l iK tf.iiiiy. r-.^y*":. ^.ro-Rv.-; v, 1i>-;;y, 13'3 
lii, 4^3; HcO-rs"' ▼. ?!sar'->-?, 100 1:5. 6:^; ,T«r?^i=.^ ^/.^sy, ?^0-S 
ia. Ml; Plack V. Piiat, -31 id. ilj:^:-. A^ bsM in Hiil v. Hii:, 
i30 III. A.PP. J;???: T-aoh rl^ht« ^t* t^ndoubtsdly -cr^iicat^l upca *ri??e fro^e th?. ftct thr-t «uc-h orl^jl'os.l bsA-sf ici ■?> hnsr ia 
goo's f«5itJ:i '^nd imiist er. sxpr^fss «nl ^?-Ml, 'Tigr<3e=T.f?nt Tsltii tl-ts r-.^^^^;-. 
bs^r fexpsR'tft'l -rort^y to k'n-^v fff'^ctl^g *I;'«t ^;bissh at' "Jf-'lss «soul;i te 
forf«it<*d r-wi -1-n^t to all, anl t*i!-:t in ^i^h o-jes it --•■o-xil;^ bt ooi>> 
tr-^rjf to ?-iiiity -^n-l goc^i u:on«cl«(«na<3 to p^rr^'it bl« or hsr to be 
deprlvd-i of the tdo^fit a*44 sdvaatag© of ti-j® J8%ffi« ae i&pAnnl either 


fc'.A«?i»l, auxins ^^« *i*'> '^^ ^i^* o»rtif iookt-j, to kafltp 'h« anwia in 

A bjiaxf iaiary &oq-aii:a» » v-tt^d right in inaurtinoe 
tftiioh s-julty will i.rovaot, if uimtx twn«l*icl»ry uasi'stfl in p»ylnp: 

3ei,da of the in»us«maa ira tj t)« paid to the i tjin»f ici*ry. f5wift 
▼ , n. ?. I T. C. B. A»^a., 9<> Ii;, 2C^'i Pv«»«r.)y v. «-5Rh'5t.t&R Llfa 
I:i*. Co., '%0 ii. wt'S. ^li- ^r.are a ior *virioui« in * ituvual csne- 
Tit lu«ur^nci aus»i;io.tiQn i» tstkin out for tha iseaefit of ti^e ^:ar» 
uaa aaBi*Bd tii^jrsin ^lil a^iivsrtd io i^ar i& ooaai'iersvioa of an 
agraeifcant b> Uvi- fcti::--f ~si:;.ry ^tlch J-i*»i bti-^i; fu*ly r-t-rsorRsft^ by 
tLs ^.^iitfiaiory^ %h& ins'.;j:t:i c?i.a;.*ot. 4eytroy th* i'ighie. of §ucb 
b«ae*loiAi'y, *lthotit har uaoiacat, by oajaowlin^j i.-^r ats»l;T«atloii 
fe» biTj^-f Ici&ry r-nd procuring a x»r^.' oeriific»ts tv t:* i^ausi to 
afiotfct'r b«ii;3f iciary, not'^ithstanding the by-I-Ji'm of Uj0 y.sa0Ci»- 
ii-:)n provl.-i*< ihat :\ chp^n^'^ of bana^'isinry rcay bs «>.?tifi at any 
tiae, an-:i 'i^ of tan as Jieairsl ty the a»3U.rsi, ."Without tfcs consent 
of *.n> e<litiiig b-sasrici^ry. ? i.r:3'vii>ii3A* -.inn isuuh righie 
r«l&t« ta a o'iiiZ in •^t.ich t-.s a3*i.i,;^vA.ioa ii^i^ b-=6r» ;taie troIiinta.ri~ 
ij anu gr^ttuitovisiy, hvt. n^-*.'* r;o »:•.■;■ icv^t ion t:- a oa^ij *iii»te tise 
bSBsrtoi&ry fcs* ^ciulrs'l rij^t? lii %n1 ufi-isr tha cer r, Ixiaat© for 
a vslustle Cf;n*i.!sr ^tl;n, ?trcr/2~; v. Trni^iit •;>? ?>t*&iii^, IB^ H, Y. 

The rr iZiiiiple inat va^tad rigMi i^.ixy toe «c-:j,uired in 
mviitiRi u-^n^nt in%UT':aan ^Thicfc c.7\;r^a of ir^uity 'till aisiarce fep- 
piifta 3ik««is« to lifs iaeuranue e'-oiloi^sa, Pos-^sroy 9. Mi*Bliat'v»n 
Llts Ins, Co.^ auprai.; t^^tknh or< Li''? Ite-JuxaaoQ, ?Uio. .17S. 

^fcil-'i a^;i «~li\nt »•',« iaaoKi.stant to t.-ssatiri -ia & ^sit- 
ii94si to any fidi^.i salon* or coii^irsa/! loo ^jf hfir Jiu^'c^ui ra':&tive Xq 

afeft«kd %a bdftaf icip.ry, she *aa not Inoompstccl ^c testify ss * 


•e*«» ••'5 tranaactlon« risl^lJn.'f xo ■;be oertl^lc;.',t^, *\)iih as tlia 
^^lJ.v?ry ♦■) hijr by tar tiu»l;?iti3 «f '1^© gdrtiric^le, thu k««piRg of 
th* crrttf icit 2 "hy her ?n* »^4»re •?;€ Vapt it, ac'J tht ?act of the 
pfc-yrrentB of iue« ^-r-.f^ *:rrfe9«ji5^ant». tliar-'^n hj htjr 'wilb her o»n ii^onsy, 
•n<J Vn dle^prsirfiJioa of tUe o«i*tif Icatd -/hi Is cL? ■?•«« &b»ent fro ft 
ho»'«. in ;j boerit?!. This oV sjtrvRtion s;:;^lisR *.l«o to tt:s S'**?? York 
Life» fTOfEpsny trolley. Coenox >£■. '^or.nor, 145 lU. Api^, 

T>-:9r-3 :-irc t-^o ??;.••» in q\i5»tlctij of fac"; Involved in 

h^r rjtjt-c-ir!'* J-shn fchnti-lt th-tt if thi^ l^ttar ttouU tiite out- the 
v,iyltr\^'i in "i'satio-. •'sni - 5.k« ^ppAlXjtfit 1^4 aols ao^ a;toluaiV9 

otit of L:s- ««pftr9t;<3 *u.'-.,-ig? 'iTii (i') ri.-J ,'3ipi-alU.nt <j2-s?saftQr pity 
or try to pay &\X dwiss fls5 ,'>r9»iu<5is on tl'.« poiiol'&fe 0',it ;>f tsr 

Tjpon ? sUJiy 0? t^-^ cojcpftsnt ^vldeKcs iu iliS rscerd 
atj5 « 4ii* criB«ii^.«r^itlor: of th^ (ir^ramant?, r^a srs of tt;- :>pir*ion 
thT-t tuts cowtr'^ct «et u-^ In tfi®»'ssr ^f iiy .eU'^ct i« e:st-*bli»i3- 
cd by '^■. .^e-3l«l'-'? .-.'.rsc-^ndsr'-r.c.a cf ^he ^ri•.1^>ac(^l. "^'^ tilr.h it is 
a3Bo r?l*SiT fros tr* fvl;:or.w^ th-t ap:.v?11?^r:t riji:! or presided for 
the rpyjii'^nt out of h?r -«-n fvn^s vll tbs ci';3«« ?-r-'! '4S'«fi?!?-ffi99t« of 
the Order <?f Colv«t^l?.n ^nJ?>^t?, "h^n --r^ellsnt -'.nl ^J^r >.u«taxi.-i 
trg^isesferrc'! tfcsir rsKldecc? fro^r. th* -^sat sll-: -jf Ih* 2ity of 
CMe«i,TO Ic U.-?. noutb, ?.i':':9 of ths aity, ii h^^^^^^'fi iMonTsai^nt Tsr 
h*." to ■*l6l\ tJjR rew^y lc;l.g'; for tha ciar-o^s cf *;').)( i'ar' :;iyES«t8 
of ilus© -'^4 ol^ll2S;tior.s *3 t>iS "^clso, ;-r;i sine M-Vv^r-s^4 *ith ap- 
P«il»a, r&Tfi Vnisfl, to s^i^'^ncs tl;-£ ro'ssa^^ for h^^r ^n^ r^sf^aid hs? 
&yt»ry '■,»o or thy«« r-.r f-ur .fsnt,^* t.-nl ts"^:!*.®?! .paJ-? hat for her 
trottbl«. nis Qv«t,<nu3^ uat U. tJus =;lcVn£t^. /f ap'-sr r^-ifc ia 1810. 
Iti V';--y Of 3xim, XT-'lu, bftfors hgr «*!<:»• n^%^- , ^r.-; r'-r'-usiii^ua tJ.pp^iXcc, 
«r«. V.Ht£«a, to rvring U«.? took in -.-^I :ish ths :.ayff*nie »®re entersd. 


• tatl»s t^i^t ther^aft^r •^« iiJt«in'1,'3l to ^o o»a« or t«ia« ts'f^ry 

tbd book. Taiiti Ur^*. a.3.t39i** son, ^li4«r ¥»!;»6.!., ap; aIXe*, came 4o 

tndl t^i-ii. Lb« book, icu B?iE«r M&ixal :.-©pli«^;i, "Ho," '-ijvi s«"»« »• 
aa »xoua4 tJiit tl4« f^Jiily had «>ve«i '>ad QveTj":ninr5 •>?•.* Itt confu- 
«ioa, xcd V&%i tli-iy ib.'ou1:1 wot Id*' in or-l x* uutll f'ili •■^«i th.-jt Li» 
cothsr h-id sfal..l aothlng t-^ ialre ab'>'jt, it. >ii*liji* uyr *lttica««»s, -^i-- 
pallsnt c«p«!'it*-ny sis94 for l^^^r iock but n«9jr rvH,tilve-i it ffo^t; 

In thl4 «ints of siffalrs e^'J without tv.fe kao^Iwdigs of 

durlo.r opp«il^Bt'« elcMne«ii Troa the plaoc rh^v® ^p(,;'8ns4.»t k^ft 
th«Sf; v.y!:'< it -irpasTis b «li«.«!|e s^'a* fl!isi,?,'5 1?^ il':^ l''i»«f iolsry in ttd ;?.c«ra. 11 i?; cx>?o? fro?; th* *vll8«co ti^at apfiellsKS 

trt>m ths 3fi;UnC8 thftt apgiftlXea, T^svaa ^latsel* by r9r-=v3t%d eclloi- 
t§itlor!«, fiaaTiy ?aocaft5.-j'..' Ie pr-.'-ouriss frm Jchr *?ot-®i5l a cJjjiR^s 
ir^ the bsn-sf ici?try ir? f-svor of h'?.r son, xfv;vsaiei, in tr.f c!«srt4- 
fio'tts of t^« Ciji-usbiT-n Knlrrfets, ftS'1 In f:.vor oV hv.rt «.«", .t" ir, tl-.$ 
HfeK York Li^'e 2K,itur--s:nc« ^ofc.v"i^y To'ii^fi ^-n.'* ih-'l tha ori-rinfel c-«r- 
tificets «?nl ©rigin*. 2 policy ^-•&:«r''; r..jr Idii®-;; frcr ;.::!-;.r.*int-.rii •-•a 

im^ueet over lis 'y.jriy o* J: -r }.ti&b ini. 

vjsluity •s'ith -Jlssra-n 'esia-.i-*, fox tkey ;j.r« .yax'tn-jr* •: .;• & >'Ohe(r;r:t to Is- 
ITtaucl s>.pp©n»«t 01UX of ti:i« 'ui^uTAfi-i'^ »hich *h-9 /■*■? p>*ld for mi<i 

^liD pr.i.4.lty ^ZQisiT*-^ion Qi *4.80 paid by ^ftp/.'Sil-^-s TittSi M^LifX to 
th« Ooinaoisr: Tai;;'bt», n0-.i ofif i.'ayffl*'m to -..'»> Ktrs York Lifs Tr?- 
«iirsnc« Com. aiiy -which af?{;.(iii*Rt tti«s:i to ti?*y ir' -lue- vi&>i bwt 


fouBd th'«t f.^n^ oK'9 h-:-A p!>i'i It tefoTi? «^s «!?fit ro ♦.'« office for 

Julj^inS frow Oi« T'liKvl letter* wb4oi> J.^lir, Sohttsllr 
wrote to t-i*! ^Xfe i*? hXn f^b*? <r.^->«ei3i«< wp to a ahor^ t Amis njjfort 
bit dcsth, h» »'•=? h<wieif nr>' >«<*''*?•« T^'•t he fo?}-! mriI* ^oy cliaoga 
In th« Veneficltry «>»•■»«« S.p ♦. ^* !P'«vr»f)!C='d rB.r«r®, 

1f.'?t7cl tc;;' 5ff*»r9f. lf» fvl'lttsow, *iSfn«rt by *:-• flZsnt , b»iR no bfsiir- 

*ft>lV9c3. It l» -wholly I'-'^s't^rlft.i^ ar^i «hot;l^i ha.-9e b«i-'Sft «»elt»ciwd. 

»?« re^^^nlK*"*! for furliitr prcicowiJiKiO'ip act. tricon©iel*ssit '^iij-* tr..* 
flew* here exrrssted. 

Fl-'^FPSfD APR }^mk^TitD, 


^^11. llo, 
46i ^ 16003 


TALTW CAPt^OH, by\=;«*t. rrl_-/% 








Tfci« '^?s» ar. «)Otlon by s «Fi.oor to r«oov«*- fts.»«£t«s 
for tr=.« !&•« of «ight in on« «yc c«u«efl, ?'« cl«i»«£S, by »■ n?^ll 
or otn«r ob^fict faillnr or thrown ^iu hlw rro« tli© roof of s tulla- 
ing *hil* h.e wfi« on a puWio aidswRlk. /^H i^fend&Rta, «xcsrt 
a.preilant, 'ssra dl8«.i«««!l out or tij« o«ie« b«f -^r* the tri>j.i. As 
to iilJi the a««nd«v1 d«cii2r«>.tlon aUtsscsd in s>;t3t nco tl:»t at ti;ft 
tiwe if th« 3.coia«nt fca «u« t -ft .-.•*«.*?? cf tne tuiMin.?: ^Ricft he 
«a« ti*«R "t^ nid ^.ervf^r^t© wg-snts ri9mo<l9iin7 s n.'j rer?*lrir,?<% in 
i^hich oi,^«rsition o<frt'vin s^-^n ^tsre irn-farsd in '^orSrins «pon tna rot^f 
of s^ald bull4iiBg,* *nflf t^3l !.«», by Ms i)erv;vnti TNnt- sg«nt», din so 
carelessly ^-.Xii '\R»%'ii%^nX\y proe?-';3 *itl. tta ''or^ yr. Ite rruiiair.g 
that claintili" ffSiS «trvol' by ;s c^-r'aift nali or otft-er object '^niah 
f*i.l Of fjis tJrown from the rc^c-f of tj.« fcuii-iin^^ «tc. To the 
sfem^adeii dacl'-r&tlon «3® filed a il^^^ of .rssnfirai ic^ua. 

?'ocj« bight j!riOfttrts p.ftfr^^.Td, on th« ;iay t;.« c* ^'5i.a 
o-ilUd fox t-tial, ;1«,r«nr:>.aj'it »*d'.-: 'S moticm for lesi^e to file an ad- 
ditional pies, eet*tn§. Mf in »ubet^r:ce tft*it at Xh^ tin?'® of tL« tic- 
cxsemt the buil^li^?:; ^'^X'? in t,( « s-s^iuis*'^© poeeea^floR ?ino control 
of an ind«p*B<S«Kt ocntrsietor u»?S*r ^. contrsct '<?itt. 'Jeti^nnent to 
r«teod«l '^in.-;. r^i-alr tne «?..*.«, rn^ r;, t the dftfen.-^ant »>s.g Rot liable 
for imy mil or otRwr obj«ct ^*M<:f. fsl; or '^la t^ro^n frow tt^o 

roof of «ftld bull^ln^ by •&l!i Indspewlant oantrwctor. The motion 

■vfkff l-snled wren prtaentedl «ind ftspin on ren«wiil tbflreof during ths 

trl»l ftfter © ruling ihst proof of ruch «att»r« »• ««r« ««t uj in 

x»*« r<«j«ct«4 r"i«« •^acs ln9i-1iria«loJ«. 1+ te urp'e<5 th^t the ieniwi 

of aucti motion undar i&e olrcun;»t'»rio«» »»• arroneow* in that it 

was a» 9bu«* of the court's divoration. 

TL» prooe«<iin/^e r^olfttiog to tha rf«*«Bt«»tion of tr.a 

•otion ena aotion of th<; court a-ra &n\, forth in tha bill of ax- 

oaptiona in tr.a folIo*ln^ la.nfu(;.g« : 

■And ttta plslntlff, by trl9 aOorreya, Hesare.Ooldxlar, 
Ro-^lfers * Fro<tr, t jcJ:, tr.<»n «iek« tuere <3bj«ct«1 to tr^s fiilr.g 
of ifcid pise, Ht «ucr; a lst« ifet«, to-«it: on ttit 
4»y tfca s»u«3 #*« to \;« crdisd for tri©2 aft«r having b««» 
panfiing or ths daily trial oi^ll for jis»riy t^o aonths. ^i«r«- 
u.C'On tha court in^iulred of '«f enfant 'a counet®! »?hatfcsr h« 
oonaidara^ It necaeaary to .fH« 9\icb pier?; rrher^Ufori .Isfsnd- 
ant*a oouneel etatcti thiit ha -iid not thiak it necesaary l«t 
thou^bt tiia line of evla«nca La :3a9ir*;ci to ?j«t in undsr that 
Pi98 ccwlcS la Introduoad un Jer the pie* of gensre.1 l8su«, smd 
tharavi^on tbs ooort .leniftri tie sjsii noiion for Isav© to fil* 
ttm <6Mlci aiditionsl rie* «n:i a««iflin«d the 9«.id ob^setlsn to 
tie said potion, to ^l^iah ruling of th* oourt th« wwid dfe- yy his fclXorney th^ri sni thisre duly ^tsaepte.i. • 

Tha laaaifaat puri-'oee of tUe apaoial plea *a« to ireet 
any objection tfeat might otbarwiaa b« ft»i« to the introdwctioa of 
t«atlifiony showing that tba praiEid«s in quaetion »«r< in tha ex- 
oluaiva poa«a»aion and control of »n injiapendent ooctrsotcr, »nd 
liSRoe it la ccntendad that *hen the court aeKod oouneal for appel- 
lant -ffhather ha conaidersd the plas, nscaaeary and denlad tha mo» 
tion, it waa tantamount to a ruling tbat it w&a not nacaea^iry and 
a concurranca in %Y.e etatament of lefan.tant's couneal "that tha 
line of evi4en<;;e ha 4«aireS to gat in under that plea could ba 
Introituctd under the flaa of general ieeue." 

If svch -we tha unmletakabla import cf ths record, 
than, in vis* of the court »« «ubeequent refxiaai to reoaive tbe 

teatliBony wben offered, the queatiow of sbnat of iliaoretiDn would 
be diuarely raiaed. But it is by n^ SEeana olear that thla i?fes 
the .ground of the oourt's riiiing. It ices not af f irftatlvely eo 

appear; on the contrary, i\ »a> t* inferred that the court acted 
eolaXy upon tha {jrouni- of the object icn thet the plea «aa present- 




•d too lat« «h«ra tb« cas* had bean on %h% trial call for two 
mon\h9, and in tht faoa of sush abjootioa andi th« a^tvnoe of any 
other eho-winj than th« nature of the plea, it cannot be aaid that 
the oourt atu««d lt« dleoretion in so ruling. It do*" not appear 
that any exouae for not present in^ the motion before «ae offered 
to the court. Ae the bill of exceptione i« to be eeteeaed a 
pleading of the party alleging the exception, if it ie liable to 
the charge of uncertainty or oeiieeion, "it ought, like any other 
pleading, to be cunetrued «oet strongly againet the party who pre- 
pared it.* (Pozere v. Hall, 3 Soaa. 5.) 

Looking again to the bill of exceptions for any show- 
ing **y the court atooult! bars granted the motion when sMfsin pre- 
sented, «e find no specific reasons wera advanoed and nothing upon 
which to rast the ocntention th»t counsel was taken by surprise. 
If he was, the rnooxi does not show that he so apprlead the oourt. 
fe do not think, therefore, th^t it is fairly Inferable fxoir the 
record either thAt lh« court ♦« ruling raeted solely upon the Yiew 
ths-t the plea «*e unneoess^iry or that counsel had that unvier«tand- 
inj of It, for it appears that i&stesul of accepting the ruling v;ith 
such undlerstanilns he took exception to it. Ts oannet aay, 
therefore, that the court abusei lt« 4isor®tloa. 

This brings u» to ths ccnteotion thut evidence that 
the re«odffiling and repairing of the building were conducted by an 
indepead«nt contractor, w^s aiaisaible unaar tfc© pl«& of gsnsral 

i.^9ue. The able and forceful argurcent in support of this conisn- 
tion reviews several i:i«:cislona of tb« Bufreae Court applying the 
doctrine on this '^estion laid ?io*n ia liia case of Molwlta v. Look- 
rid^e, 137 III. 270, »nd assorts ihi^t the interpretation given to 
it has resultdd in an unwarranted departure from the cosBison law 
rule of pleading in actions on the ease in force in this elate. 
It is contended th?»t the ruling in the Moliulta ;ase has been rels- 
understoodiJ^Tid that it hfts been aieapplled to actions in case wtisrs 

xiv jr 


thd char*ot«r »nd e^paolty is which Xh« dstccfiant «&• «uad '«r«r» 
not Involved, ani to dl»ol«.r»tloa9 ti.«r«lij ^htucM ttIl9gHtloB« b«ld 
to te i*4«ltt«£l by tht pl«* of generjil i«eue dl<i not constitute 
««re in:!uC9rtjnt but trAr«r»abl« f^^ot* »hlcfc the pl«R of not guilty 
put in i««u« at ooa-ffon 1%'tf -unil that tuoh ruling iv «t ▼->ri%ao« 
*ith the pr«5ricu« ruling of tii« «?upr«»» Court In City oX Ch«»pAign 
V. «aVurr*y, 76 111. 353, holdin,j tlat th« oomhoa 1»* rui« «• to 
tb« ple» of s«ner».l Isbu* i« still in forcd And that the Hilary 
TsriB rul«i, rt"iuiring th« dl«Bial of s»*tt«r* of inauoemect to be 
•pttoially rl«ad««S, b«iT« not been adopted by our »tt tute, en^l i« 
incoo«iBt«at 3itb the ruling; in People v. Kirk, 18" III. 15^^, hold- 
ing that the cowroon In-* ona be alteTe<!, Kollfled; or rsperlad only 
by f.n act of the iegialature. 

''8 b«rt carefully reviewed the lir^e of decieione fol- 
lowlnir the Mogul t^. '««, fn-\ are conetrainea to think th»t In the- 
con«id?ratlon »&» given to the -^usetlone of plesdinge here raised, 
.^al th&t the rullnf« »er« Intsnrlsd to be applioatl^ to 5s««« like 
the one 3t b«r. 

In tne gaee of Chicago Union Traotion Co. v. J'irku,SS7 
111, 9S>, th« deol*.r*.tion i»se tns.t the d'efendaat wa» In to»«»*»io«i 
of iin4 operated 9 «tr«et-oar lln« :>nd v c»r thereon -^^hict. jumped 
tne tr*ck ^^nd injured Jsrka -vhile drivln.j on ths street, Ailega- 
tion» -a* to o'tnarehir 'in:J operation of t-,e rj&r *-sr« r^ferted to in 
tha declelon ^^e rr.att«rs of inducsr-ant re^iuir in.;^ no proof unless 
danied b> ai'joci-nl rl^aJt. Aaoft^t other cs>si«« cited therein •*■«« ?«nn- 
eylvenis Coisvany v. Chikji»en,P3C 111. 4?^??, ^hsr^s t£9 iaiatiff, & 
ftnUQhcMii, *?.« Injurs-I in tha oourse of a »witchin«F op^r&iio^, »ttd 
the s-ifsrw^nt of tr^e deoi^r@.tioa wh-.s t^n^^t tjf^« defendant ooiap.-^AJjy ^^^a 
opsres.ting the ro?-.d upon -^hioh th^v »-»!'itchins took place. It ^ua 
th».rc nald tf..«'.t tee plea of ,:»sjn^r?.I ais«su« itsnliedly conceded nor. 
only the oKer»tioc of tba rosii ii» tharein a.11e.5sd hut that the oj;'- 
sratore ib cn'*r^c of the trsdn* fe-er'^ .^©fen aKt*3 / "sf erring 



th«r«to an«l to other oa»t», th« ooutt ic the Jerka cs*e, in 
•uAirari<lns Ite ooncluiklona, ftHl4: 

•whdtbsr the rule «bov« lalrt do«n la In etriot ao- 

oord »/itb th« prlnol^lea of oonmoa Ift^'s pl«s.tSlB2 s» th«9y 
©xistaJ prior to th« acioptlois of th« rui« of th« court of 

tl/ft Riiritry ter«B, 1S54, l« h «att«r of 11* tic i.r*olioal 
ooncsrn, jsinc* ti.« rule of aiera <^ ec i 8 1 o f e <uir«« ua to «a- 
ftu'Osi tli* i«w -Mi *• fini It, uBl«Ma conailerat ions of a. vtry 
controlling oh«iracl«r •'?*ra pr^santad ^hloh ^oui<i justify us 
In overruling tu<5 fravloua decisions of tils jjcurl .-^in.! v,galn 
laying thts fouaci^tiont of la« »n«w. ''« ««« ao h>.rci«hip ia 
reiuirin^ a 4ef«niant in » oeaivt of tv le ohAri^otiir to pl«a.i 
»p«oislly th?kt It ^Rii not th« o^ner <it m por?«««slott or 
Oi'orsttiou of th« property ^r la«truR«)citc^liti«8 ^-hicla h&7« 
c»u««d t&« Injury." 

An^lyxlDjr tb* dlcoitloa ftAd looking to the«0 ^ords 

for tK« tfcop* of tbt rul«« *♦ »re coinp«ll«d[ to apply it to tli« 
cs^ae it b^r «b«re tJre slHgatios Ift tb!;»t th« Instruasntaillty cawe- 
Inj the injury wrt» iin obj«ot falling cr thrown from a bullilng 
baionglnfj to d«f*ni?int in th* courie* of r«aM>d«ling -^n^i rtpslr- 
log th4^r«.^f by hla ««rT«^ntc. It ^iJl be Qono«d«d ths^t tfe?> a ne- 
gation 9f o^nsrehlp or poss«t««ion »>*« /rattrlsJ nnly «o fsr ac it 
t9nd«4 tc gfeo"* irho ojiftrftted the infttruwjentsllty, -iwd, s;? inter- 
fyffliei in thii J'«rkft r;«s«, t.h« ple^ of t^aneral iamj* iji c*«»» of 
that ohar«ct»r .iJffcita th«t oparation of tl* ln«trum«ntsilty if not 
ap««i'>lly ionied. -« f-^11 !■) s«'* 'iwy llatinotlon in yrincipie 

b«t«««n t>.e infliction ^^f <•:« injury to onft on the strsiet ttr.Tujth 


th« n«f:li!5fi»t op«ratlan of ^^ncUin^fe etr««t-c-r, h.» la tl.« Jerka 

c»8«, and to on« ytj «i ei.i«*ulfe by 'he ne^lir^snt *hro«iag: of « 

nail fro» a bv.lLil«iat« '^r handling of sr>*>.t€rial tl,er«on csueln^ 

ttft Injury. ?!ur«iy, tha f>-ct thct t};« forss-er involvwi op-sration 

of tt'"-ohln«ry or a railrovd fc- « no '^it.'?! fcearini^ on th* prlnolpl*. 

tb» essential thlnj: d«ame<i to fc® sdwitted iy ths pl^-t. of genaral 

ii*8«« in tfc* author iti9a reffrr**! to 1*? tb* tvUft^atlon of cisetrol 

<»od O|'isr4tion of th«» Inatru.Tgints^ltty or Hg^ttoy csiusinjr: th? In- 

jury, in-i until U:t^- ru2« is more -i-lef inerl or llsrlts;^ in its 8C0P« 

by t,rii¥ f?^ipr««9 Cowrt, «ft feel oonsitralnsd to s.p^ iy It. to cses© 

lik« tb<t one at b«ir. 



It i« »Jeo urg«4 t^tRt the dAeb^rstlon f«ll» to isu^- 
tala a caue« of ftotioa. Briefly st«t.«d« tb« contsntion 1* th»t 
lrt»B«uoh •.» It ie %\l»^ii thffr«lB thfti th« object which oauaftcl 
tht injury w9,« ttiro^n frott th« roof ^nd that •o«rtaln »«ft w«re 
«njpi,g«ii in «ori!iag uporj th« roof,* and thp.t th« 'i6f«fldant by hi» 
••rtrftnt« %n4 ci^«nt« n«E;}l(?ttntlf proofdiKi «iih th« «ork on thu 
tull-iio^ from th« root of "hiob th« object fell or was t^ro*n, it 
foilo*« tr^at Ift the »bo«iK)i« of sn allegMtlon th«t tha •certain 
»»n» oa ine roof arsre d»f#nia»Rt»? aeftanta, th» injury w*.« not 
oann«ci«a aith or ca\ilo not hftvff bean cauaei fcy rsie stiTi^nte. 
It l£ «£iough to «fty that etish All«gatiosa A.ffiouat«d to nothing 
R.or« ^«rl3Ud tJiAO ». defsctiva 8tst«,r«ot of the caws* of action 
that it&.» cured by v«r:lict, (Ppr^ect Co. v, Baublia, ^Ib III, 
AUB; Grace * Kyle Co, v, ??ftnborn, ''T> 11. 13P.) 

It ia further contended th*t the evidence Aid not 
•tteblich s.p!t;e4l8nt •» liability ieca-uee it af f irws^tiireiy Jij;? «ar» 
la ths rsoord th^t there *?er* r en ^oriting on the bullllng «m- 
ployel by another, anl h1»o tnut h«9 ^nd not lefsnd&nt ha J full 
charge of th^s T*ori. of remodeling the bullllcs rh»n plaintiff ws© 
iBjurs?2. A« to the I'Sstter fs-ct, th« :->bj«otioft to tfea iueatlyn 
csilling iv forth ir&a first cr«rrul©>l and th«n ansitsined, but no 
»otioR waa jta.lft t :.- «trlice ovt th^s pnsj-er. 

Holding ao *"« rio, th-.<t the Cv^urt j^rop«rly rwl®^ that 
the sviiance thus inudv^rtsntly laft in ths rffioord rslsstfti Xo 
fg.(3te no'. ?*t iigavje bxit a -Smitteti by the ,cle>x-Ung« it cannot ftop- 
iitly bs urgsd th-i.t th« jury shovU > i."^'^^ t/'l.'jn 3vjc>. wattrris Into 
Qonsif'3,»r;5tlon In ■ »}-:|.«ll?int •*? 3 i^'fbi.litv. 

We feel It qmx luty to affirrs t,h« ju-.!g!««^nt . 


c: X 1 Ju-. 

= oter Terrn, lo.n ^ 
196 - l>f,*J54 

D«f«B^«nt in Frror, ) 

18 4I.A. 19 

... / i 


"^ mi7. T^AII.POAr roiePAITf, » corpora- 
tion, / 

P5^latlff In Error. 





\ / 

Ti8ohl«r, tb9 plaintiff i.-.«lo^, hroupht auit agslnet 
the Frl^ Riiilroe-^d Coapany, to rnO«3v*r f;jr the loee of osrt&ln 
articiea allayed to hftve be«w acc«rtev1 an»1 checlc®-^ by lefandant 
at EJH© Isjl-iMdl for nhipg-^snt tharefros-: tu FooVford, Iiiinoi«. Th« 
»ftlrtavii >f Kwrlte <isni«d th;*i Use stoo:ie wer* lo«t^ th^t th&re 
*a« s total«, th-*t th«y ^^«r« of th: value a.ll®.g«d, »«::* 
OAulm«4 thfet th«y aia not corjstltut® persons! bag!?*?,© and wer« 
not knowin3:ly aoc«pt«d rtai cfc«o5tedi e isueh, 

i Kuaeiar: fi->ii\C)^\r , \ brs!,«««s tray, 1 ten jOt, ^4 lln^n to««ie, i iui*^ 
S9 ydti, of t losing, -%n.:] .^;r< y,ii!», of musaiin. The total vaiua! Ion 
of ti.« tortl«l«a wsB cliiiffifti to b« t"M, ?rn>1. plaintiff, on n«sr U- 
rt/ct sxa«inaiion, testified th-a svjc): ws^g t!«ir wiarkst valw* s-t 

^■- Tiiii? I', ??t r.ooleford, ani Ic Fusai^^ -^hars ^;iii% bOT^?h^ them. 

L On cro««-«x«*Kin.v.tion . , to-tsev^r^ «h» p'^p l tt -5^4 t.hat ©he n«iv«r bousht 

uny articles of t^e astie ' ivA ir Fockfcr^-i or St* Yor^, ^*n'? dl:^ 
not Vno^ th« »i4r«et tt^Ius of t.f.dfv In either plsce .>r at 5:11 ia 
isl-suad. Hsr tsatimony *&•« th« only Rvidsnce on that issubjact, a-nd 
wae rraniffsstly lncomr«tsnt. Vaat uf r,L« ^rtiolea un^^uwationably 
b.«-l 3. !Rfer'«t v*lu« bott at tr* point of ahiofrsnt '>nd d »tin&tlcn, 
iso^ without tftttimony thersfon tf.« court '^ finding f^ni ju!3^«ot 

for f52S hi' A no l^gfel fcsftiH, On that ground «lone '*« *owld V)«s 
comuwiieti to rnyGrut th« Ju<Jpp«nt, ^n.i r«*ani1 tho ct-e* \inle«e 
th» ccnt«rtlon jrAsle by plaintiff In error, tb»t nuoh goods did 
not cc>nBtitut« tfevga^ts, l» wen t&ken. 

It »rp««>.r« tt;'»t vl^inti'f ««» on » return trip 
fro» Pu»«ia tc fc%r ho»e in Bookford, »nl took a third claes p»«8- 
A^t In th« ateia.»»«i;is which It^nd^d her at fllio I>^l»n<!» Bh« b«<i 
a b»*ii«t trunk ;r.i «* bundi* coDtminiM: thn ftrligl«» in ;jU9«tion, 
for «)i.ioh «h<i rec#iv«d >i ohack at Flli* I«l»n<l inhere ahe bought 
« ticket via said road anl th« Chio«!jo, llfil*»uk©e * Pt. Paul 
Railway for Poo>fford. The ob«ck purrvorte-i to be a ba^^gage check 
ieausd cy si id co«jftny, and *a« treated ae «moh. The bsakat 
trunk case througfc fit tf.e »' « tiwe the plaintiff arrived fit 
?*oc»fyr.l i^r.d the bundle eoee three jsontte i&iter. It, can hardly 
be que»iion»d therefore, in Hbe^nc^ of proof to ths contrary, 
that tt« oheo** cap;«? froff. «in ^uthcri««i ««:«nt of th« oojppu^y, and 
th'-.t the pjode v?«re reoeivad >» b^i^gage. The ^;u«etion la,- can 

the gcoi*, under t*te circuwatanoea, fc« eo rsif^ardsd? 

Th9 fcunU* wa^ don« uf. in ^^at^rproof awci^ of heavy 

?roode ana ti«d *ith h-savy ropess, 'j for^ in -^hich i^roigr-'ints arid 

tKoae t&king third cl?»»e pa««:a.<i5e rafter:- oj^rry wb^it i« ooair^only 

tret-ted as thslr tegfa^s antif «^>»t often inciuaes ?»*tiol«9 for 

houeefaoli use, St hJ?® fce«R hali in st 'ies-«t t-^o caaes, Ouif^it 

V, H-sn8fcA«, 35 Vt. 605, arvi P»rKSl«« et ?4l. v. flaohs^r, '- 111, 

ftlH, th»t fc^ggfege tjvsy und*r some clrou>atnncee i-mparly inolwde 

euch art Ic! tie. Bu! «h«tfcsr it dose or nnt is a qv^«ation fs do 

not d»99K^ neoeaa&ry to decide, for the i^arisral weij^ht of s-uthority 

austsine tbw vie^ tlaa s c:.^.rr i:/r, hy aooftfting' )?.rtisJi«e ^b fc»g- 

3;«»-2« which o!Sin.not. properly b« claig^et^ a« svich, le rsep'^nsibl® for 

then '^« auoh if h« had kno^ied.^e of tleir t.r^j-? oharact^ri acd 

alio, that jslthougb Mn real chf^rRCt^^r of tt-sr i*; not stated to 

bia wfce? fca accapta th^sr. for carriac'^, "if fro« Xl'A f-'cts ?»Rd 


circufftft^none «urrouadin<vi; th»ir &(Cae^tance he cugbt to knc»« tlMit 
th«y «ire not f.roi;*rJ> {•■■'<?!:v;*jj«, iino«le4g« or, bis? jjart of tbeir 
tru® c»it«.jf»ateT Ti.i v.* jraaume^i ««r«'! h» «lll bs considftraiS aa 
huYlli^ aij.«u«(3.1 tie liability of « c3*«on oftrrlwr." (f'eo Kutchln- 
<«ton on C^rrl«r«4 Sur^ tt* t S«a. i^U>>J, And oa««o thore cited.) 
Unct«r the oirouaatt- i^oes '■<* t'-- t.h« oi-.^raiotsr of tJ-;« bunctiis -inA the 
aooepts-nca lUv^rAof ■>^« bugga^fa, «« *-'re not il»;:oe9<l to il«tur'o 
the fiiidlin^ of ti;« court thut ti.« tur,dle coti«titut«cl«)»fl:??ag9, or 
to differ -slth lt« fcollin^t of "i^-^ ^hicr »c T».;'-*.r4 It; cut, in 
vie* of inooKi^attnt proof of vAlue, ^s? above «if>t*!2, t{.« ju<ig?r.«nt 
ttust t« ri3V«rte<i ^iind tf-9 t;au8« rew-,»ndiid for a. n9» trlAl, 


talser tera, 1912. ITo. 

ELSI? ^-ArrrLL tt »1. on a^«al 
JACOB 0149, / 



184I.A. 29 





\ ./ 

Ttel« la an appeal frow ft 'i'tcrsft -^f for^elosttre. Tha 

Oftly ';u«8tioa »rgv*d In«ll8Rt'« fctisf, -ini* the only ens 

*8 ar* cftll»4 \ij;on to conali^er, relsst^a Xo Xh^ t.i..'»iis8iti3.lty an4 

•ufficlsncy of ifee evliencfl reliel upon to take the cage out cf 

th« eifti\jte of llfcltatl'^rs pleod^d in tfa ■:.i>®^-ar of one of the 



The s!?-ker ■">f tt.a note given to s«curs lf.« true*. ds-iC! 

foreeloia.l »»a .^n* "^(T.. G. *'-:di«n, tiho ctisvl In lA?:?, Tbs cots 

7?«t8 for f-'lrf-S, payable Jvn* CO, l^'f'^'. 7rs Mli io for-nclom -^fes 

fll«(J Jufss ^Qf 1'03, ;.^r:8 1.>5> l^^fore ti;<s e»; Iri-^^tion of ten y^ara 

from the *a.te ';f ^n 9nlnr8«>r,8nt r>n tr s not« ar: follo^a: "l,c;o.00 

ost:id by p-<abody, Fou.^r.t«3in;- «■ To, on Archt. ntf , Jur.« 30, l^'S." 

?fii-l er.SoresjR^n* ^fce Ic tue h^ndfrlting- of Jo«:.apb '^, F«3m$r, -^Jbo 

t^etlfisd U-^r.t ti^ pBTionnlly r:;\ift it Jsine "0, 15?S3i tl.-xt he ^r&« 

then th« :v<fri9r of tr« not«, tvt «ol.1 it in July ).f?S3i »ni %h%% 

«fcii(* from Ups^^ cf ilmf. 1:9 couM not, r«cf»13 ti'i?^ pr«fclaa det^-.U* 

of t^.e t.r«!in!j*otir>n, !se tr!Ou?cf>t the o^i?'tlf ItT^tei r«ferr*.1 to in tns 

©Kl^reeai-sDt «3.« lellv^rexJ tc hir fcy '^sdd^ll, t^e r'-:?-vkeT of tno 
TJ0t9, 'ifii t/<->t tr^d ^v-rey ao isni.".r«f»:1 •itsii: rroctT?! on sv;a?i oertl- 

flos-te. Hi furtii-ar tsetifisi tftvt f.s >■•;:! no )th«r traneeiCtion 

i»lti. ^ad.l«ll tfc-iij X::At rfrredantad by y^iii troet da3;i an^i not*. 

It i» true t{.'>l tba ■^niorsefTcnt not t^eins; in tj*;« band* 


^Tiling of th« debtor, bwi in th^t of t^9 then holv1*r, cemnot, 
etiiidtin^ a2onii« be in»m»d auoh «iri«<i9ric« «f paysasnt «« will sup-» 
port ^^• i»);lld*tion of a tt«-w i»"o«io« ni thu* toll tfte et^-^tutv^ 
of limitatlocii. (f5a« »«15K«n r, Klner, I'f- 111. 3?«, 'sn^1 owBfte 
there oltaii.) But it '«in b* oonsliftr^ii in ccnii«elion with oor- 
roborativa ««rldt»no« tonrtlng to aho-* nctrjftl p«y!r«nt pt tr* tl(«,a of 
th« enioraorent, (v«ilfc»n v. Kiner, jsiu ;. r a ^ ) 

If ft r''*Ttlal rp.yBient *»« in f^ot (Bsde by '^'s^ildeli s^t 
that tiw-, tn«n« of oour««4 nn impliiS'-i n««F proiciee arialnj there- 
ffO« ^«a.' «,«* 3 <^ within th« atstutory ?«rlci, (Lo««ry v. Osfar, 3- ici. 
365); ana, oonc«dinf tn&t H-slmer ^ae « coKpstftnt ^itne«a^ his ts&?- 
tiisony^ unretutt^d, wr.a tuffjcltnt to «@tJ>b3iafc «uch rayirent, Tiia 
«ru&al.-n«« oni nffeot of hi« t'^»tl«ony *^? tjat. at t?.*? t lm« of ths 
ftBlortt^rsnt, h« as owrsi^r of t f e nets r«io»lv*l fro??; it« »)»kflrj, ^vho 
»a» ludeteted to hliE for nothing elee, tJCCiC^or a o«»rtifio?te frr.p; 
v&iob t.e obta.inei tb«t s-.-nount. In tn« «ba«no« of sny otbftr :c- 
o»cioB for pwyia^ hi* suor. »uir; or r.anding M»' «t oertif i c?Ue 
thejr«for, th« preavjnpiion «oulci re ll:5it It ^^a® In^ sni-id to i« ap- 
pii«cj *i5 ra-yw-snt cft i>;« not*. 

Th<? ♦sfKioree'i.ent '''•ss slsjo sni it 1«1 to osnali^'rat i-:jE 
froB tna fact timt it vi?«9 ff»de af-ortJy aftar maturity >r th* not® 
«rid nlae y«*ria befori^ tis et^^tute »oul" rr-n, ^n? th<f)refore at a 
tijqcs When there ^jas no r'nti^-*? for a ffiiss cr<?^iit. (Mills v. IT-^^iris, 
liv f. Y. 24^; Coffin w, t^uchnam, I." '4e, 471; Sos^ifoOi-n?; -•', H'aUng- 
ton, 1? Jf'hn*. ()f. T.) i«^:i Ai«ton v. Stst« Ban's, ■■ Ark. 455.) 

''c tfcink ih^ 'sviienoe 's'f^r^ auffici-snt to t«ls thut OM^e 
out of tr.n «iat«t'S j leade-J, r-nd t;'.>>t YeiS;? the only ~^^u«etion sr- 
jjue4, th« 'lecrri!* «ill b« affirfRSd, 


r?*^«#iotae Wli 


v.:: if:: 

it Tr 




460 - 18000 

F. P. PTAHY * "^O!??, a oorro- 

At:- « Hes, f 


184I.A. 30 

cooPT or CHicAao. 


3K0PT il»f^: p. p. ro / J 

\,. / 

Jvdf?ff»nt In thic oaae ^an enter el In tf s auir. cf 
fl'v',080,75 in favor of app«n«e a» plaintiff snd *.!n.-in0t nppe}- 
lant 'i« •I'ff enfant, uron .< oi'slm for i?;jr9.g«« for alles^^^d n« 
g9nc« in tb« trana-ehipn^nt of ?5t l&pg« im^fbsr of carlc^da cf 
p«aoiie« froR BrijliaiR City, rt»h, i? trurioue rointo in ^outf Tj^IqXu 
and f -.ur olher «ftat=rn ot'-.t««, t>;a Isf ■sri'l^nt ?;einr-', ih^ initia* 
c*»rrit»r. Ther^ T<^f>* -. trit'i b^f^re the curt nn ?* i^i'y, ''-f-d 
the juc!^"«*nt «nt«rel oorr««pon1§ ^ilh ths v^jrdici. 

In tl;» .>rigln<il brief fi;-?-) by tl« iefenl' nl thfj 
poiat» re;i iec5 lij-on f-r rev;-,rsrtl r^r^ stf*t«^ to t:*? thnt ite 'ilje- 
gstions* «no crcof flo net «u rart thss ?r»rdioi -ni jv-l.^ff-fsnt, rnd 
asoon'l, tiif^t th« ctarsia f the aourt si^sn of^ljy to ti.e J"ry is, 
t^k.5n ».s a 'whoij.e, ftisTeiialng, et>Rtr«»<iicts)ry ■: M ocnf 3 iotir.j:; and 
objeotioa* are jf.«i^.' scecif ic? iVy to certcsln pcrtionB of it. In 
& «uppie«.sntal trl«f it ia ur^^s^, aironf oth*r tting-e, tt^st the 
piaintiff ahould not fc« E*i lo-^eril t c- r»cnvsr b<9c&u95> it. dii not al- 
le^td in th-5 Btstcwant of cI-Ir; :>r pr-jve 3t ^ h'? trial tt^A it. •■»*» 
ti,d Ifiwfidi bolder of tfc.* bills of l^din^. 

Kany points aou^rht to fc-s rsis«;3 in • h« csss, an:! ''liicii 
ars dittcxieessgi in tii^ brief*, it is vni^'sosei^ary to coRfr«ijt u- on *' e~ 
cwuBi tl;«y ■"'Sry not . raservt'i' in thig record f.)r review's'. *''e -th un- 


able tv titti in t^a &b«tr^at6 of tl.» raoor?! th'it ch^ijctloas *er« 
oi»v3 tj aay portion of th« «fi(t-»nos offert*! by ths plaintiff, and 
S'd \in4er«tood if. to ce *>1»!lttai! in the orjil .^rjuirsnt hef-^re u» tfc»t 
ttft r«4orf5 do«« n.-t sho-* s.jjy aucl. obJi^otloiiB. Bfor -o therst any- 
thing h>fToxe u» tbst risl««9 a«y ^udct. ion la to tha in«truotlon« 
«xtt9pt ihit *n «xo«ption «&» t'*.K<»r, !«■> rbf^. ao fsr na thay relftt^d 
to »hat constituted > prirra f J^cift i'if^me.^. But 7,h« pels* thar© 
Tilsel i3 cot urg«d In th« srguTf&t ■^xx-i '^*e .abendlonsd. 

Ae to tie |v/int crg,%d «i-eoif ici»ll y in tha ^upraeaental 
trlel tfcis.t ti.e ;. lalntlff till r.ct Sfrt 'mI in Us statsjr.ent cf ci»lRi, 
or froTs U; on tfcs. trial, th4.t It •»&£ the U^ful fcoldter .-ni o^ner of 
ii\t &lJiS3 of lacing, re ar^ cf the c^ inicr that tKe ot^.sotlon 'waa 
sr&ivea cy ti.e d«f«nd^iiit . iLh -iffi6i>vit tT merits first ch^nengee 
tii8 rigat of th« K-l'^iwt.iff to ir.»ints,ln tl* iivlt t.«c&u»e cf the ai- 
IsgecJ f&ct thht the ; IfelRliff corroi'itlDn rsfc or^^rii'^ea vttder the 
l6T?ft cf a. eUa© AltT U:^n t>«? Etf^te of IlllnolB, &r.l hni not cor- 
pli<-;o vsiti, tjits et-:t.utte «f I-;lnoie reffv.l: •■'•.inf: the ivdalaeic-n .^f 
foreign corf oral iv;r»fe to rt. bveineec in th*. s* '<!&;, ^nC a3l9:;eR ttat 
tlife t-is-antlff haa ttt^n an.i ^till U' ocinr. bv) InsRG Ir. ths? '"fAte of 
Iliinoia -^itlr-.n thfc s.efening of tt,s litn-". ute. '^l;is t{.>Ut ?uie aban- 
dcn^jd, 'il.e i^-fti-Jtrit o" jv.c-t itts th^n t,r':c«udB t. deny thfe fUAttga- 
tiGTit? of t):>i©»cnt of cl'jiR: Ihf^. S. ILs !Si5f<!inc.u)-5l ftilteci svnd refus- 
eu to furnish aufficient --Rrrl acieQU&tit «qvi!-'t:,i'nt or (X'Ulhyva in I'ur- 
niahins? the ?i'.»is, «n4 to deny t,L« itJ l-.'.et' ffol }-.l.leged In t) s stt.te- 
ssfent ths.t. t/d c}«f«n6AT5t din n"t exercie* duts av.r^ in hr^nlMng the 
property o( tI.e risintiff, ?'n.i that thftTit. -^ai ri3l^.y in ■.uUvarln?' 
th« Sfyf'e. No moil/n for a *ore ai^oifio at ';■. v«f vnt of clsiir '^aa 
»»d8, Th% point co-ae not appear tt; ij^iv^ Lr-en ruided upon tk« frotl^n 
for Si Md* t-i8l, tlis fir*;t stieEpt to rsi&e it bt>in;-.j in ihiii court. 

'ihu recora sr>o"*s tlf^t fcHlls v^f Uiding ^ari;; introiuo^d 
in «vla«rit:a jrithcut objaotion, TU<«y isho-' r^cisirt ty the dsf«nasnt 
fro* E, »:. V'cfrill of the csre in -njisetion, s^ad as C'-A&ijrtiee ti:,e 
plaintiff oorrorftt Ion. t'«rriM, ''ho ^t-.e « -^itnrtrie f >r the ; i.Hli> 

tiff, t59tlfl^i t^t the r:«sch«a ■J»s^rit«'l in tie bills ?f laclina; 
fceionj^ad to 5^". ?. ^tsoy •* ?'on<«^ ;;n;1 wore hoUj^h^ by hlir for com- 
pany; thAl thflr* ^«.« no partlduifir reason f^r- h^vins;; ths bi]Ja nf 
3;.>dlinif B.airt to him r^raonftlly, but tJst it h%d be-n oiiBtamrry to 
do «o f"»r ysnra, ani tlsAt ir; the > re««nt Inpti^nc* tfcw cntraot* 
war© ittide an'l acoaptai in fcia nAfre on tshalf zf »r.i for t^s« benefit 
of E. P. TX'n.r.y * ??one^ whicK oorporwt i-in "wae ths PorBi/^n^*. 

'fe t^v« h&c! oooewi^ri to (vnniior aoise of tfcs -.uRatlina 
raiaad in tr.« .i-r^aent rac!^rc! iu th« caae of Oairb"*', ^■■chineon Coje- 
»; Lift- ion Oomr'axjy v. Union PRo!fi.-> Pslaro'M^ r\':.j»;r.Fry,180 111 „;»pp.256. 
F6 tejft ir thAt o«»e thftt im'^er t) % C^^rrark *!»an4jr«»nt to ths Int«r- 
a'*te rorf»t»r « Ac*, aui* rijat fcft t-rcwf^t by tfcs Iftiral fccl'ier of the 
till of i.^fiinr:, or K ihs till of Is^inj? wgts not prcii*cer1 itB at— 
S'sna** itccount^d for Vy the cl*lntlff, T-hf) muRt eflt^-^bliah Mb jrigt.t 
to it9 joftseoalon. In th<? preeant ose«» ^s t.Mn'k thft record con- 
f^lna 'Ithiri it e»-fflol«nt ev1."f<3ro» t-> rr '"»?'nt the conolt'fllon t^at 
th« pl?^lntiff wv? th« :«rpj. holier of th* fcllla of i*iin» oovariRfr 
!*".«? 9hipR«»nts, 

Tn Vr "i o':-";^! 10'^'^* Ion f'f t.\,=; '-.n^'at lori es? t' <.hs f.ropo- 
8 It ion <i;iv:'nc3(1 bv th a iof \>nl-'^nt , that the T'«;.rd:i$t of the ."jury is 
^."jvl'n?!* t>"i« ff.r'.riif lai ■'i^e i?.'- 1 of ths s'^l :*-'!snoo ■"'?■ ^''*f? n''>'nfTontS'd 'S'ith 
t?itJ f-iot th?.i th'! total olaisf i?-,.^1* ty t'h'i^ , Islrstiff ,%^ aho^n in 
it* s.r:i9r!.l*D-.'i ot"'^ s.'Ti'^nt of clairj, r^.a for ^^•>!jt *3,000 more thJ'n the 
? 3~''tiot r-"n4fi~nO hy 'tht ^'-J*??. '''-'5 f-ot^ r<iO'*'^ctln;T *h'9 "sMsati on 
of a•^*;l.l^-'Jno*! in o*rryian: t^*, p^'-'f^rty -.•-« 'S'-^'O. Isat-jd. They h'^^^a 
tvO io »itN th-j -"llas^gi f-'11xir$ of th» !l5*:ino'^r!t to fnrnish c^re 
pr-istiy^ its rai-j.'^fs"? f-;»llur§ r-'?"'?«STly to Xcn th*- <i'\-^^, '^ni its ai- 
Is^si f';i3.'r^3 t -) tva.K;j'' OTt tt-^j frsi'^rt ^it^. r^^'^oni^ble col^rlt.y, 
Kor« th-iK 700 p.3;t'?'? of tn j .r-%o:>^i %r« t^V.'jfn ui"; -IM- th'? ^ral f,tn4 
doouw'Sfitary *'»i:1«no« KX-ibaitt si nt th?» trial. ^hi3« in our opinion 
the TsydlJjt of ths j'ary w,<« larc^a, we are uai'-bla to ssry aftar a 
C'-rrefvil ri(ir«a-il of th^ ■Yi'llsnc* th^t tbe v-^r.i.lot ^vss 'v-s-yin^t its 
jrsnif^at weS^ht, 

The juugr.-sint will b» affirmed. 

. jdS . 3a' 


'•"-^ Term, jo^^ ^^ | 

811 " isns ^ i 


0rOROf JOHK rroFRi, ^ ) 


184I.A. 32 

Appeal froa Tiiperlor 


f ) Ccurt, Cook County. 

ft iicrrorsttion, , } 


?*tilt if«<» fcrt^isgbt by th« arr«n««# «■*« r^a*^*if'*i sig'ilij** 
the Rpi€l,'.'!nt» 8«» aefefKlftUt, i!r<>it fi 1o«n«fit ©ertifiOi»te iseu«d 
by the defendant %t Q«crg« H. r«|:o«rl, ir. fjuvor of tfci« flnirtlff 
ftp fesneficisry. Tbe ^ixt^Ksnt i» fourn^^ti Mfcn ^ V'tri^lot tf Ui^ 

h«T, 1>50S> fch« lreur«t'l f«Sl«tt to p.'^y a^^s^f^ftpjentp foj' p^r capita 
^< \ t»x ^rivi «i««« aieouniin:; to 6tS cente, ani cp Ooljofeer l^t %ae dropped 

frca tEOftfeerfthij::. Or- Ootttoer »!!^h h« «•>« rt* lr-j»t--%t«ii, ?.r;a his aifss 
*ere \mH frc^n; tiict tit?'*; imtll 'nUi -:J.^fjtb 1« l»*ay, 3-^10. 

Ir itie appliC6li<5r. fcr reif:?.^tHt«rs«ni Vtw following 

"1, a«©rgs H. rpc«ri cf Chirtogo f-tat# r?.r l\\, wl«ii- 
iR.\ tc b« Teiiv,'^%fiXm\ '-^t? n rs«igit«r ff tii« Kcii^rr? BTf-ti'isrliCoa 
of /^i=;erioa, 40 .ificler« 8i)i ^'»r.r>ir/t en ^^j fernor, \h^>-% I am 
of -acuna ccfKiltlfTi, gfiC'i health fif.u t«m-pei*'5S.a E;ibit«, ana 
that Bin,-??? ti.§ iate of r^y appJ leather, fcr P^«E.berpf5lp ifl 
th«s p/^ici Aftfi>e«ifltior; I hav* fftt ^\x%%,%Um^ ftny p<?!r^cnal in- 
lurlos »or D«««r;. affJlct^d j^ith any»'?»a»e or r^irj-Vr.*?!® «liMt- 
ever, ©xeeft a« fcllcwsr 
♦ • * ♦ 4 * 

•tiii":* fc(«>aUh c«rti''io(?v« U? gii?atn a*" a rttft cf the 
oonfii(i«raticri of sjy r«in!*tat«s>ent In the Mca^srirb Broth?! Jhooii 

of )ia<»ricft, n^* Jt i«i ;\gr#aa tiv'tt "i.-ii^ ^^^rtiriaHta Bh-sn fci« 
^ttaoiiftdi to anU b© fsaae a part cf ssy crlginal f»prUon^4c»» 

for ir.««i?«ir»hijj Ir, a&ld Association, i»^ni that » o»py ImMNMNP 

•J:fiil b« 3tt*ioh«»l to ffy benefit c«rtlf ict^te Wo ^nd 

made « r^irt thsr«of. 

•It i» further axf r««8ly agrued »nd undi«r»tooti tiial 
my aeid r^lnwlst ^Aant ©rail le null an? void If the fibove 
w<*rr2»nTi9a an I r8yr«8«ntaticn« or »ny of ihnrr shall te un- 

••Dat«d thl« Btli lay of Oct., i90?. 

per Of H. PPOTRI," 

No il«e»8s or elcknese *r^ Bentionftd. 

Th« court iaatruot«d tbe jury t)«»t D.s et^iwipents 
founi in thl* (application for rT>in»tftteirent werf r«t ragsntntione 
and not wArrsntlae. In ne*«r to e:«oiRl intarroj'jtorlee 
tfed tvt I ha ra^iuast of t^a d-fandsnt, tt.« jury fouficJ that tha in- 
nMTwit G^orga R, P<po«rl, *?ft8 In g-.>od health on October ?*, 1908, 
asd tb»t t« w«? not «iffUot«.J i>»ltb ^i&y illneee or dlaaaae of tin 
heart durlne; itn period of tii«B« from the drata cf his origlnel aj- 
rlicatlon for jsaab^rehip in tL« Wodern Brotharhood of America to 
the eth day of Ootot^r, 180B, 

It id *rsusd by tbe defan1s«at that t).« ans-'fera to th« 
apcolel interroge-tor i9« •''ere j^gtiinet th?j rrs-nif-aet '^•eiflit of tba 
evid-snca, and ind«sd were not suujorte'i ty any ©viiencs. It ia 
further ar^ftd that tha aourt erred in instructing the Jury in 
vti^ .T-ara^er Indicatad. 

For t'e r*8Sont' c;«t out in the «■'«!*& oT Conlinsntyl 
I.ii"^ Infiur^ictte Co. v. ri.i,::gr e, 110 lii, 47-1, «• think tJf^t tlie in- 
struction :«!a5 rror'«»". T^*-' Soctrine of tii^t oae® -^-a^s reaff irriiscl 
in Minnesota, ^ulucl LIT* Ir.sursnca Co. v. lir<*. , ?:;." 111. 27;i, and 
in Ep^nod <?. Centra t Aoci'i'^nt Tn»2ur>;^ne<5 Cj,, "36 111. 4^54. Tha 
ca«fia of fnright v. rnl^hta of ^■sscuTlty, ''53 111. 480, '♦nd Croeee 
V. Kni^^Lt* cf Honor, :"i>4 111.^0, ara olt-sd b; the dafsndsnt in 
«.rguirent, but «a think th«» clearly di»tln~ul!eL».bl« froa thoB© 
upon fhiof, wfi b tea our dacialon. 

Holdlric; s« t*-* du, t p t the court vaa juetlfied in 

ia«trvjcting: the jury th&t the atM^rrentsin tie apt-^ i''-f*^ion ^*^^ 

not in Ifl^iii effect war-rantiea, th« i;ur'5r.n fall upon ths daf?;ni>--nt 
to abow ;J.B ?^=^- allsgeqi i^ it@ aecond additional pie?* - tb'<l the 




ineurtd kntw tho •i«t«ii«nt tc b« f«l»». ^e ^o not find any proof 
of \»iii» «ort in ^k« r«oor(i. Th«t att(»n<jir.g physician, whc Wtt» a 
witnevs for Ih© a«f«nUar.t, t««tifi«vi i.h\% tha irf0Pr«a "did net b«i- 
lUv« h© had h«nrt trcubl«.* In an affidavit whl«h wa» 9utoitt«d 
t© tla« d«f«mlAr!t, and rflftie also by th« ati«ndlns phy»lol«n, ih« 
»iln«6!» heretoforo ref «rr« l to, it is »«% fojpth thit affiant wan 
•fully aatlafita that i1«o«a«»«ti n«ltfe»r beli«¥«a nor r«»l l»«u froB 
anytiiing h« (fnffiaint) nay hav« tolJ Jaim that th«r« was anything 
«»rlou8 Xha ifiatt«r with hi??* until Ion? after Ootcber, 1908," 

if« fin<J no «rrt>r in the r»aor<l euoh a« wtooula oau«e a 
r«v«r9ai of ta« judgment, and it iw th«r»fcr« affirmed. 

33S - 1^7W 

TILLIF ^rKW?m^Q, / ) 1 O 4 JL«A» OS 

▼ e. 

PAUL Dusirut;, / 

ApptlJ'wut, ) 




•-..^ /■ 

A jUvl^JEsnt w*it r^niftrdil In tMa c»«9 u on the trsrdlot 
of th« jury In favor of »pp«13««, »8 pl»lntlff, *»!! ugainet ap- 
p«ll»nt, *e dl«f«n4»nt, la th« «tjjb of #500 for an ?»ll«f«(3 »«s»ult. 

The «rfu»eT5t by a; «ll»nt ia chiefly ©onfin^d to th^ 
prapotltion '•<iv*r.ct4 fiitt th« vtrdlct wa« «R;«ln«t ths esnlfett 
•welgftt of the «vl'5«nc«. Tb« t«etl«ony »*e oonf Hciing, but, as 
ts».« b««n of ten ssl-J, th* trial oourt f»n4 jury «^.o h-fsri r-nd e»^ 
th« "iitn«sa«« -"fre la !«ioh K«tt«r roeitlcn th«*K ai'5 w« tc detftrrrlne 
tfcsir trutl5fuln«8» or ths 1-cK of It. Ey i«nylnf«r th» fstjtlon for 
a a«ii' trial th'S trial court h's.» s«t M«f ^tpvrovsi upon th« w«r.1iGt, 
»n^ *« are un»fcl« to »ay tfat hi« oonclwclfln wsr «rron«ou®. 

Co»|:l*iirit i8 ff.ade of ^.n iaetn^otl^'n t^ni-fred by the 
pl«:iiitlff anil (jlvsn ly th© oonri, »itn r«fer«nc9 to t's «4»>ount of 
d?.asage» to b« a^»rd«.1 In th« -sver.t tf^e iury foual ti:« i<>®\i«a 

for th« pl*iistiff. "^9 fiRi no srror in tL« ln«tructio». 

Ati iudtruotlon proffsrs;! by tr:« iftfen-tt&nt ^'»& not 
giv«r. by tr;« court. Th^re •''•a* no srror cosr.-ittfsd, Bo m/ch of 
tL« instruction ^.n w-a proper to t-«5 gl'^ftri ~»tje cov«r«f! ty other iri- 


Th« judgsisnt '-ill t9 ffiffirsad. 


; 1*84 


ei' Term, t-io —, 
359 - 1S806 


184I.A. 34 

FILIPPO CAm3'J"3A, / ) 

Pliilnllff Inr frror, ) 

v«. / ) 

/ ) COTJPT, COOK rnnsTY. 

TPACTIOK ronpfffy, I \ 

D«f«BilaBt in Frror. ; 

\ / 
-- --''' 


!?uit w*» brought by th« plaintiff in error s»» plain- 
tiff, agv;inet th« dtfsniant in errcr ^sa defendant, for tf « rs- 
N coT«ry of ditmagtt for pargonal injuriea aH«^ed t-o havo bssn «u«- 
tiilneci by iha plaintiff thrcmgii tfc« nsgli^snos of riafandAat •» 

Thij lef'^nflant, 3« racsiTsr, wftu otsr&tiRsi: » »tr«4jl 
rallroa; on ?for th HA.:at9d atr-^st in Chlcsgo, i«.n,i th« H«eident 
occurrel *4t or near ti^a intsrr«aot.lon of Ohio str«et. T^is conten- 
tion of the iftintiff 'ffaA tmt t,i}« o-.r ^-top^'^ed end «hiie hs ssiie 
att*iBptir.3 to boari it va. ^t.jsnly 8t«:rt«ii. The position of 
the d«f4nBs »■*« th*t the oar vJii Rf>t. istop rnjt tl,at jlslntiff fit- 
t««r>t«a to boMr.i it ■<.hile in motion. Th-? v^j-.iiot of the jury 
^S8 iiJ fei^or of tiiS i*'f«iirisnt, an-j froRs a ju.loisent for ooats 
wTainst . lAintiff thi« ^rit -jf ^rror h^a baan xroeecut«d. 

T^'O point® «r(? relief on f^-jr rav^jraal, Phich are 
&rgu«d ?»© ona in th« l-ri^fi?, namely, th^t ti.® "court arrad In 
giving «vr.l r*«?t:8iKfr ln«struoiion ^ni In allowing Improos^r arg\i- 

Th« bili, cf «xc«v'tion« fiXid loss not purport to giVtt 
all of ti,« 6rll«no« aduucad at t.ije trial, or r: c<>»i l«t« synor.eia 
thereof, in narrfttlv* forup. It contains ths v:r.usual sttjtejriisat 


that "th« oourt , on tb« motion for » n«w trial, baVi that tthll^ 
tti«r* «>9 *:•».« trror In th« inatructlone, ?.« *;!» gfttlafi^a thsvt 
tb« gre-t pr^ponciorance of tte <vi-8na« »*• '♦ith the il«f «ri.1»nl," 

T-<*ftniy»nine in«truotlcn«j •ixtaan t^ndsre'l bjr the 
plaint ii'f un^: tMrtaen i«ml9r«<J by i ^ie <i*- f endant, -'•rs given, ^t 
think on tb« wholt th«e« fviily »nd fairly advlued the jury of iha 
poir.te of law «liich •ho«3/t goTarn th««. An inatmctlon terxlernd 
ty II. « : l^'intif f and rftfuaedi , cv» to the sf feet of tli« number of 
«lt&ei>»eet on either «l<i«« ^s93 fully covers i by an invtruotlon 
^iv«n ut th« r«qu««t of tb« ivf^r. Unt. An instruction (^iven ae 
t-andared b> the defenlsnt, to the «ff«ot that if the jury teii-sved 
that the i liintiff "did not «tt«mpt t';> lio»rd «5:Ud cmr «hlle it 
was tteodins, but ttet h« sttemytecl to tonrc! it rfter it wse ^trrt- 
ed iinS ic motion," le could not rftoov«r , Ir fi^siv to be erroneou* 
bfloa\:89. It iR ol?'l»e(l,tlh»r* wjie no t«»tiwony 'T'y■,-^ter$r on -shicfc 
to bees it. Th«? VUl ^t exoeptione, «.e barctofons etstetl, lose 
not forth nil of th« t«fiti«ony, Hnl for HMifVA thst «rp«»rs la 
th^ r-'icord ther« n-ay have been artple ^virlence b«fors the Jury on 
«vhich to ba*j« th« Instruction, 

It la e.tfftniOd tl ^t visfeovlaiit *« counsel siare^ji Ihft 
t^atirony jf one of ; isintif f*-;j Itrs^^^a by *i.i.1iRg the *or'i« "s't 
Ohio etT'iet" to th« firr^sr given by ^^i6 ^itne«», rc>in»el frr 
•.lefen<3;»nt at thss tri«»l, 'j«jni§i! tJrj^t he isj^s or rjtsjniinij to r^^i ftosi 
& «tt«ttogr»pUic report yf th« t^satiit-ony, but on the ott>«r \.&nd in<- 
eieteci ti.'»t c« w«ie r«AJin^ frv'JK hl^ own not^w, sr, '^e ^e u»i«sr- 
etand it, frors not -a wadt for his vh^. Thare is; n'.>tbing to sho'* 
that he «ft3 r«9din^ froe & ©tanotrraphic revxjrt of tj-e 3vii«nc*, 
It fouid «e*«r. to L3 <3. fiiir inf«renc« thni Ohio «tre«t *«8 r«3;f*!rr3d 
to in t! « ,ii««Uion, "Did you s*ie ii ooase to a stop thareT* to 
which lh« '^'itneae en»i*©r?>d, "It iici not cotrs to a. stop at a". .1." 
Ths jury, ho?.<9V^r, msr^^ inatruct^sd thwt they ??«ra not to deoid» 
tha ca«s« ui^on st& tietfanta jTs'^d-e by counss*! *hioh were •■>utai-ie of the 
evidence, if any -inch ststamsnta hal bssn *a-J«. 

*• find ro ftrrvor in th« record in tVi« om«9 arhloh 
•hould oauft« a r««ar»fi.3, and th« jud^mant will therefore be 


. '^^'inj 



• o'bsi:' 

350 - 1»817 

EPWIir F. POPrFT? and FVILa.. 
POPPKR, ?»rtner» lolag bi^«i- 
nesa *• I.1EO POPPER A f'iJfl, 





184I.A. 35 


C01J!?T, COOK C0US1Y. 

Iffii JOf?TICi: CWf rFLIVirpFr» THr OPIflOW ?>F TMF COURT. 

\ 5uit w&a wrought by tie app«n««« -^s platntiffM ag&iatt 

th« •.ppoliaot as d«f«njiant, upon an «»Il«gi'J gufersnty of pBynent of 
AH order a»<iti by ths Dooorwti^e Olae* Company, a corperfetlon, 
which that ooa.oany fc*il !?lv«n the plaintiffs. It »j pe&re froR- the 
record tb«t prior tg filing th« ord«r plaintiffs wrote from ti-eir 
8e« York affio« * l«tter to "F. 7. SpH», 0/0 r>«<3rrijtive Olasa 
^!»«.," ststlftg that plaintiffs undoristood th^it ha was willing to 
gu&rantfts the payment of tie arder, and plPLintiffc snclosed ft 
-foriB which they et&ted in tJ.^lr letter they wovilrl iii^e to have bi»: 
sign. A Viae Rueeell, who was » /«itneoe f >r tie i-i^^int if f ©, t©a- 
tifled that she was U^e escretsry -jf the conoratioa, the rocora- 
tlve Ci&ee Cowf-any, »nii wae it a "bookkeeper sinvl general .>ffioe 
girl", that on t).« ooo.^^lon of the receipt of the letter froe 
plaintiff » sh« had no convereotion wilt Bpolt other timn "th;it he 
refweed to eigrn guaranty th^t xhey eent. • • • 'fith refer- 
ence to thie letter Mr. Spels eisiid th^^t if the other 0. K. Trae not 
sufficient, the orcier oouii be oanoeled. I waB to reply s^nct tell 
then. th»i if the 0. K. was not euffioient, why, ihny could canoel 
the order." She further testified that ahs wrots the following 


■In reply to your letter of SSj-t. i<>th, I ^ieh to 


tfm i»i' 

££•1 iMi 



•ay ihii.% I ok«d ih0 07<i«r wbioii your Vr, Bavtfr^««^ ••nt in to 
you and if that 1* not iufflcient guar»nte« I «lll havs to 
ash you to oanoal tha ordar a» »« oan fat thia glaaa from 
othor rl^oaa. 

YouTt truly, 

r. w. 9PWht, 

per M. Ruaaall.* 

The «ltnaaa furtber taatlfia4 that aha bad no conT«r- 
aation with tfr. 8p«ls following U;^ wailing of tfa* lattar, with 
raaroct to it, until aftar ha raoalvod an aoknovladgssnt of aassa; 
that be tL«n tcld har h« wtis sorry that Bh9 w««d the word "guaran- 

It aaana that tha pl&lntlfft «rote to tba dafendant 
on Saptambar 20tb, one day bafor« the gooda were aairt to h^ire been 
raoaived in Chioago, to tha affect that the latter referred to 
would anewer aa a guaranty and that the ^ooda woulc) be ahlppad ac- 

Tha witneea, Viee Puaaell, further testified that de- 
fendant afterward etated that he «ould like to hnre thie bill paid, 
aa "they were puehin^ hlK for payment." 

It aee?f.9 tbat Spals wae trsaaurar of the Decorative 
Glaae Worka at the tine the order was given. Ths defendant himeeif 
testified that Uiee Huaeell bandistd hiis the order antl ei»ply eaid 
that B*ugher, who wae the a^ent for plaintiffs, would not deliver 
the goods unleeie the order was "0. K.'d"; ths^t Bau^her #anted an* 
0. K, on the order to '-.nos th-Kt it -iTjJs rsyHy given by iS.e Decora- 
tive Siass Company. He further testifi-id that the instruction to 
Misa Bueeeil was given by one Gay tee, who was connected 'with the 
Deoyrative Cowpany, and thet the latter toid her to rep3y saying 
th'Ht defendant would not guar®^ntee the &co«unt; that the first he 
knew of the letter heretofore referred to, and signed with hie 
name, "per K, l^ueaell," was four days or more after It h<^d been 
written, when »i«e Puaeell r^'oduoedi & copy v->f it at his request, 

andt that he told her she ha4 nr, {luthorlty to write a personal let- 
ter th«t wae r.ot ^iven to her by him. 





9i;(T Mm 

Th« theory upon irlr.lob ,T«c«vary waa h»d In thfi triaJ 
court wa* th«t by putting; tha lattars "O. K." upon the ord«r, iho 
<l«f«n<iant guaranteed p»yftent of it by the Decorative Olase Conp&ny, 
and that the Glaee Co»p»ny not having: p*l<l tha account, liability 
tfctref-jr reatal upon ths iefeniftnt. 

The lettere "0, Pr.* do not of the&asivee oonetitute 
a oontraot of gu^Areaty. from th8« alone the character of xta 
tranaaotlon oannot b9 det«r»in«'1. They «ouid be underetoo:! gener- 
ally a« meaning thtit the order had the approval of tbe officer 
wboae nacRe appeare, but they oAnnot be taiven to aean that euch of- 
ficer wwild pay the account df tfca corporation prinoif^l 31d not. 
It ie a »ell eetabiiahad principle thtt th« liability of a gueran- 
tor le limited to the expreee terr-e of Ms undertaking and cannot 

be extended by i«plioatlo«, Gilbert v. Yunk, 214 111. 23?; Palo- 
aon V, tfcRae^ 47 Pac. Rep. 409; Vccre v. fieaman, 50 Atl. Rep. 
^'82. The defendant h&i sifnif led hie unwillingneee to guarantee 
the eocount by refuein? 'c elfrn tl^ forff: of ;?u9ranty sent by 

In our opinion ths plaintiffs lid nor s^jtr^tJlsh a. 
guaranty of th«<junt by defendant, and tne jriotion sade to dir- 
ect « verdict in fjivor of the Uofendant ehould have been j^iven. 

Other erroarear* ailas^ed in the ruiinps of the court 
in tbe reception of ^viunce, and in th« aliegad iKpro. ftr c 'nduct 
of plaintiffs* attorjiey it: his ar/jUKenJ. to the jury, but tLfsae 
n^ need not ocnaider. 

The judgffieiit wiil bs rever®ed. 




i>9(f.t 9«.- 

'""■ ^^r=,, J.J, ,, 


361 - isaie 


'lie©, / ) 








I.A. 36 






«r«ooy<»ry ^^ae fc^sd in this cftB« by the itppelleis ft* plain- 
tiff «c»»lnat <s,C7'«13^nt &« iefeniant, •upon an stccownt stat«5'l, Tb« 
piRintiff, *ho »^a a lawysr in Na« York City, cotti j-- e fftrornsy 
and bu^jinisaft &r;«ni fur thr dsfendiaiit i'or csisvsrnl y^ari) upon a Tit- 
ten fjontfict. The account ia rsJide ur, of iterg of 'iisfcuras.renta by 
the plaint ll'f wft'i« on f'cootjnt of X'ta^- a-sfendarst, uci includ:«« ohnrgao 
for }:ia yrofession'il. sei"V*ce« l.r.Brjd u^on ' mor.tbly cocv^neiitlon 
fizi^d by ^ritton gu«\r*cl. TLsie- ••■'tai' i- iri»'_ l-efo?:^ the court 
and .■». ;jury, '-iiKl from a Ju<^:s^'(5nt «nt«*r«d for \U%. 'snount cf the 
verdict tfeid Apt;*-;*! hr,.-T be'in rr-'-^^JS^riJi-^^. 

Thti point i? r^ll^'l ujcjji for r?T^•»2r3iil Jtr« tho* •■.ll'sged 
«rror of tha court in ov.'jr-»-v. i in - liS f ^r^i-'-a'". *« f>;..>t loii foy •:» ,7!ore 
specif io (StfT-jefjin of olUir-j £*or;";n'i, thut cbere '*?«?? errors in the 
raoepti^sfi fti:id rejection of avidjtnc^i tJ.iri, thot the oourt srr»a 
ir« rsfusirap' tc> fi^^ 0'«"'-',!iin i0«trvscti.'>ne to tt^ Jury as r'squsstsii 
by tJ.'e :}-*f «r^jRr.t; frjurth, th?>t th*; ver-ltet is clearly contrsiry to 
the i-'S's ?tnc1 tl"® '^eigf:t cT tfc* «vii«%TiC9i '^nd fiftn, that th>9 c-o\irt 
drr«d in denying th« rstiors K!?*ie ^v tJ;ft viefer. tent, for s. p«r«Kptory 
in9trvoti."^n to f jT3;i tr.« it-rstie* ir f>xv'-^r ---yt th'S (?ef«nsi«int, 

Th« If-rger 'ff^rt cf the t-rififs cf bc/t^. f.*rt3t^3 ie 1«- 
yotsd to ■» ^tecypeJcr cf th« fo\->.TX\. point vr.v:«d, nofte'iy, I'r.&t th« 
vsrdiot is contrary to t).e ?f«i^r.t of th« «vi.-i«nce. iifttr ciirisful 


•xai&inatlon of th« r«cor<l ^nct of the »r^»«nt« of ooun«el b&««d 
tl:i«r«on« v* h»T» r«aoti«d the aoaclu^ion ifi»t tk« point is not 
wtll t&H«n. 

Tha aeoond point di«ou«««d in appalilant'* brief is 
aa to tb« all«g«di trror of the oourt in overruling the ts^ti^n of 
defendant for a sore epeoifio etatewant of oIai«. The abetract 
dieoloee* that interrogator iee, a« pernBitted under the practioe 
of the Vunioipal Court, vere filed by tnc defendant^ and an^s^ere 
thereto aleo filed. Theee, however, &re not abetr»ote5. How 
far the ane««r« to iLae* interrogator ie« aay have influenced the 
trial judge in ble it^.cleion on the notion for a more epeoifio 
etatement of olaiR-, we unaT;3e to eay, ^n are, howavar, of 
the opinion, aft<8r examination of xha record, that *he dlacrstion 
vaeted is the trial Judge a» to r(3i:j*jilrlng an additional or raore 
epeoifio etateaent of dale «a« not a);:>uaed. 

II ia oeKt. urgei that certain oarroapondsnce batween 

tha part lee was improperly admitted In gvi1«ac». It had to do 

with plnlntiff*» written rciueata for jsoney, ani rep ilea thereto 

exrxsaaing ragret tb^t defendant *as un&ble io send the njoney at 

that tiase but would d> «o tr.areafter^fjto. It la »)Ali that the let- 

tere froa the plaintiff wera ««lf-8«rTln5 looiaratlona. Te do not 

ao regard theas. Thty wera In the nature of dessanda for payaent, 

and the iikn»<if9Td to theit oonetltuted f»d«ia«ion« on the cart of the 

defendant, of «hioi5 il *sa proper Uu jury and court ahoulci fee ad- 


It ie next iirjed that the piaa of the atatute of llicl4 

tetiona aet out in the affidavit of werita la, under the evidence, 

a bar to the action. The plaintiff teatified that on December S, 

1910, he called ufon the d^-fendant at her horr© in Chicago 

and treaented hia statement of ©ooount sn:3 aaked for payment; 

that the defendant then aald that ahe believed ahe could pay 
him at leaat part of the account in April, and that ahe would 

pay the balance aronthly until the whole account was aettled. Thie 
teatlmonv waa corroborated in aiibetar.ce by another wltneaa who 


. 5bJ0 


J< r. 

'1 nee 

' r « «i • 1 .-» I 

•ii! tv. 



by t*--? l9ft»n1S'Di>, *b;j ieav.e ucon the ',u^«tion "":&« by th* verdict 
fjTiDi Ir. f^"or of t:,# l^intlff. '^e think thtjr* ■*&£ avifficlent 
jroo.r Qf tho P'r'rr.igsion of the au^;'. •i.o:'i. the pjpo.ii^tf to f.ay tb« 
«-*Rs, I'T;! tb-t •^9 smtuti- of ll»ilr:tio3fS8 -ioss not apf ly. "^alk^r 
r. Frg««an, 3'^ i;?. 1?. 

t'-o iy.etruc-icno -^or* t(i^n?.«reA by ths ;:s';ini:int ^ni 
«arkai "r^fu-sfi" b> t,hd ci'urt. Th') c:;urr.'incad th:;t, be -.■ould 
charge thtt jury orully. It rfi-jjht bs coajsoture? fivm th^ t-.go'-'J 
Ihs-t trie OT-^'i o-hn-r-^ft c;5n9l?.t«"5 --f 3Wlr.«7 sttn^^ry roqu-^ata submittal 
by the .'-Si-tiflis to th« o»j;3. If '"•. thd nh3.r;;e as or»"l, 
ur«4.-i5: "!.^i5 ^-'il^ I'^.i'l cl>?/'j In Morton ▼. ?us«*y, "^i*^ 111. ^3, thsy 
'f*?'!? cr3;'5rly r-^fu'S-id. H:i*'S''"si", ■» L?*'?^ carafully axstr.inatl t.'is 
tT'3 ia»trui3tlcaa, ajs''. i^r-e or t.'iSj oplc.l'jn th;it in 3:5 ^-ir 3,3 tlisy 
■^5r« vrj;-ir t'i-jy ^tjre -.z'vtct.i by -nbar por'ioua 'jf ths oii^r^^. 

Th-i j-j'!5«fnt Till b* fif iy-sd* 


■r Term, lojo y^ ■ 

rPAJff L. TUTTLi:, 






* / 


y cotJPT or ChiCAOo. 


Julgavni w»« r«nd«r«d In thl* ct.«e in f%T'>r of tha 
^pell«0 .i« plaintiff, «.nl against the ap?.^ellftRt «» d«fan.l&j3t, 
upon th« f^atlgnwent ;>f th* olnift of 3»« Welcfc of <sn aocount for 
terTloon 4,nd 1lebttr»ement« ftli«^Jid to hsve bijsn pftrforsed audi 
ff»i9 by the «s.ld ^elcfc. 

Th« groun-li! alleged for revsreral ar« th«t th« verdict 
we»« cotitraxy to the Ia" and tfc* ^▼I'^.^ncs, and th^t th*trs r^n er- 
ror In th« 5>4«;l8»iori in !»vl-]*inca of a«rtain iett'sv*. 

We hikv« c^rsfuily tt>nai4«re'1 th« record, ar.d str^sj of 
ti(« opinion that tte« vftjrdlct le st l9%«t not as- Jt.anifastly agj^lnst 
the =s«l-;ht of the «vlieRce a* Ajhouii c.tue* ~^- TH'f^Tm&i, 

Tr.e l-sttwra offered Ito 8vi.l«nce ■"•sr^ sls&ilur to thc5«e 
pa.«»«®d u,on l« this i;aa<5 of '^elci; v. ^js^fcold, no, IP.f^lB, nxi. 
opinion la -^hlch case le fil^i thl* <iay, for thw r«f»«on« >3tr«ie<S 
in tii»t orlnloa, lher« «?•.» no ftirr-r in thif r«c»i, tlon oT the»8 

The jylgwert will te *fftrseed. 

ff->7Tpr' ^'f^- 

■2. Ho^, 

2&1 - 1^858 

\ In re ?st?!te of OrC*R «^C!Tr^1^p'F, 
S dece4>y©ti, on Aj;j;;e«l of CATTi/FIIf*' 
I I.. FOX 9t a2., / 


»^ etc., of the -^ill or C#CAT1 

184I.A. 40 



) A'^PF*! ^^!-* CTPCTUT 

) rr^JW'r, COOK COUNTY. 


On Avgi;©! 11, 1911, an order *«« fsntsred in ti.l« 
oa0« in the ProV;*ite Covrt, api roving the ^xecutora' fin&i ac- 
coufjt hnd ord-jrlng th«5lr liechKr^js ur.ori t]i« s'iJin.?; of rsceii-ta 
of di8trlbute«e. The or'ler in l-^rrrs furtK'?r aUowsc? C«tberin« 
Fox snd ?ophla Lori, '^s reai^'^.usry legate^is, ^n i-»;j;«^l to the 
Circi;ii Court u-otx ■their joint bond of f200 r'itr in t*«nty ijiys." 
On Aui?;v>8t 30, ISli, in puravance of ?< notice- f^lv^n the attorraey 
for the «xec>jl:>re of s* !rotion tc axt^n-i th« tins for filing an 
app««l toB4, tiia parties .: ?t in the Probat* Court, sn.l c-rs that 
-lay wn, or--i*r wae ant^risd e«ttinf: aal:"?*;; t3:i« order of Au*!A:8t llth, 
Lers^toiora raferrso to, af f-rovin;^ th-a flnBl acc?>tint of tf;i« «xecxi- 
tora, :.iiw.;h'srginor' u; on ftiin;if rcsct^lpta, »jtc. Tbe or'-ler Oirita 
c«rt--ln I'toitalB contr. ijis.1 in th-st of AUfTiist ilth, ^^ni in ti^rma 
aliow^jij to ;i;. ; ei iante, -.le r^ai^u.-^ry 39g.at9e8, »n appof^l to the 
Clrcxiii wourt, c^rtr^ln (.'.ii^icr^i objsotions bsin^ «el forth in the 
ori^r. *l^hin t*erily r^r^ye ufter Au<r>-et 30, l^-^ll, th« 5:*.p«bi 'va« 
,j.-^rf«ct.«1 tiy the fillnr of a bond thsiretofora ^r-trc'^fso in o) ©n 
ooujft. Th# Clrc;i.ilt Court upon isotlon of apjeileee 4ianii»««-i tne 

-1 .tT 

\: Toi 





»pp«al Uioc tli«« one gruuixi th4t the Cirouit Court «:..« without 

It ig s.rgM?A by the appelleae that thlw action I'-aa 
propsr for the riia4Bon, uo e.Jl«g«d, that th« ord«r o£ Augtiet 11th 
¥»• » finai one, snl tbat as th* order of lujrutt 30th at.-.proYed 
the H'.tir« final report, tt^ l2»'; n«m»vi order wue void es its at- 
teaspt by t2ie Probate Court t'.* <lo by imUr^ctloii what it imrt r^ot 
the i;c»er to do Jireotly, naji^«iy, to exien.-! i'ws iivi-i lijx the ap- 
prov*i ^nd filing of :*n .o/peal bond. It la alwitted th«.t the 
probata Court bi»i the power iurinp; th« t«rir. within it« llitoretion 
to aei i^alde ILe order firet ref errtf4 to unci ent^r ih^ eeconi^ 'out 
it is s.rijusi tt5.^t t)"!sr9 y».'>f gn abu^e of the dkiocr«?t. ion «o vested. 
?or ttia r*»3on it ia a^'li that the order of Auoruet 30tli i» void, 
and that the ordar of Aysniet nth •t&nde •*« the final order and 
•U8t !./« coneidsred aa t? « one fro« '*hich t«(S repeal ^^sa trttessfted 
to be taken. 

It eiiould b« not<5d tr„%t the 'i!-.r«fl3 honvi r«r«r« to 
the ordsr of Au<n:at 30th, and no rtrp««l from t>,e order of Aurniot 
litis »Hs Bttej?.;. tfe.i. Th* ?ff)h-itt Hourt fca4 j;^r isdlct ion, and tre 
order, if it was «rroneou'*, ».= » fK.^t volo. i-^e et'^tsd in IS Fncy. 
of Ples^lirr ^ ?rs-ctlce ?:?■!, to irfich «e =ir« r-^ferr«-5 by the ap- 
peJi»e«, ir it cj«flrl> s^^n <5*t''S' trv*. tbere «f'@ ».n &bu«s of aiacrs- 
ti:n by if:e Probate C.iv;rt, •ilt motion aay iff rsvlswe-i oa ttpj-e^ii." 
It io clear tfcs-'t ^n erroneoue order antereo in l/.* Probata Coyrt 
c»n cot ouet ti s Circuit Court of ^urierflolion shf^re -n «pp«ai ic 
tvik«n in -^(t il?r;e. In ora^r tc fai$e tl s r«vi«t-?- pv.rnitt.^d fey 
tb.« prsctioa, tt 3 Circ^Jit Couri in ti.-ti? ca«*.; csufct t<-;ks:- juxisdic- 
iicr., ani 'e ar* yf the orinion tfuit ^urlstfiictiorj *aia octained iii 
the aaKoer provifled t> tr« fjst -tute. 

The eecoac: or«er *a^=; io. aevi^rel v. -rt^tlcuisirt different 

from ti.e first, ari It rcriy 'vaii b? that tr.<s iVoLit j?. Court in the 

exerciee of it« discretioTi detswi^d it just, tc ths ptirtise ti:3t the 
flrat crdsr should hn eel fi.©id«s ^s-r.ri the ne*.- ordfrr '^•Itfj tfts ad- 






e It 

X wdi 




dUlonal HMitter In It aprsni of r^cor.l. *• »r« unetl© to a^y, 
t,iie.r«fore, froir. ths record htforg xi« that abu«e of ^iiaorsticn ly 
th9 Probyts Court ^se oja-sriy »hown. 

Th* JuJ5fr,««t ^4J; b* ratr^rso.l ani the cauet* rejrandeci. 



S93 - IBrifTi 

184I.A. 42 

PAUL 0. nnuxT, 

) f 

) f 




The judgassnt t /ealftd froK in tMs oaae, >>o»9«f ufon 
t(.<» Vijrllct of SL j^ry, "^fia r<ia.1er«d in » suit brought fcv the a^p- 
pell'i« plaintiff Sijainst thg ^.piaaillant «*» d^ivfendent, on account 
of p«r90£»*Jl injur i*.^ a'jdtsin^ii hy ti.s Torafex if.roug-i thii aJ let-eel 
neglig'jiaoe of ths iuf'sntlaat, 

Tk« poiiat« i'eit«3 upon for rfj^.irsal «j-e, .'iliegsd «r- 
ryro in iha rjouy^ioix of evidsnoa, and th^' failures to .xive certain 
inulrvotipna ttandirad by t*<s dsf sedsint. 

Ti.3 jnisf ~37id<3«co c:*aiwi«d %o huva ixjen iwpropsriy 
r8ov*ivs..a i« tliat ^^i .^Ts uiX«:|:d.i bill y^" ^vilo of t.-.& hora^ nna wagon 
to ths isfaadsint, offsr^i ^'-pparantly upon tha ^-.eauKptioa that it 
»».« a!sa«3«ary fox ths pluln'-lf J' to provs y*xi6r;ihi5 . ?}.3 only plea 
w;a.« U:&t 'jf the g!jtt«ral lauU3, 'Siiil «ad«x r^j-«Al9.1 cHoi.-iiorje th'it 
did not pl8.o« the bur.i«iiQ of -{.x^ooC up&n t.i;!j piiantiff. Oxi the 
oth^r haaJ, o-<r.^ijr»i;ip -*a55 -aKilt-t.a.1 t./.tb8 pU;?.. ?«niiMylvenis Co. 
V. ChaprfuiLB, a':0 111. 4:?-?,; Chio^igo Waion Tr^io'-ion Co. ■-' . Jerka, -!:^7 
111. 9i5. Thlfe lUpo»s»i also r>f ti;«ii alleged srror in r^;i'u«ing 
to give tfere* insiruotioni*. Ti;3 atstrfict does not oonty in any of 
tbe givari laet ruction*, ^i' )..•■> vu, liOwev^r, rone to tie rsoorvi, aj>i 
ere of opinion th?it in «■ f'^r -e otb*r tend- roil ir'atrtictiona ^«re 

.rvTUO') KHt 

i'HA Sia^'f-i 

on fesof. 


rtoper they *«t« oov«r«d toy tt.oft« wbiofc ^ara gly«n. 
The jua|$«.4nt iilll b* affirmed* 

.IS 'l-*- 


y ^ yC^S^^C^a.i>C^^ 


r^ » -^ 


~ — .o 1- m 

'"^■; 1512, ITo, 
406 - 18452. 


Appellee, f APPEAL FROM 

▼■• /) SUPERIOR OOm^T 



Appellant. ) 



/ 184I.A. 48 

This is an appeal firom a judgment obtained by Caroline 
E. Knipping, hereinafter called plaintiff, against the Chicago 
Telephone Company, hereinafter called defendant, for damages on 
account of personal injuries. 

Plaintiff claimed to have been injured by using one of 
defendant's telephones, ohe says that while answering a telephone 
call she "got a pain right through the ear"; that ahe could hard- 
ly hear for an hour thereafter, and suffered pains in the ear. 
This condition continued for a week, when she was examined by a 
doctor, who found a large abscess on the side of her neck, which 
he lanced three times. She remained ir bed for about a month 
and suffered much pain. 

Defendant's counsel have argued with force that the ver- 
dict and judgment are not supported by the evidence. u'e might be 
persuaded to agree with counsel if it were not for the condition 
of the record before us, which, in our opinion, makes it impossi- 
ble to consider the points lirged upon us. 

Upon the trial counsel for defendant asked the court to 
give to the jury a special interrogatory, which was done, with an 
unimportant modification made by the court. This interrogatory 
is as follows: "Did the plaintiff receive an electric shock while 
using the telephone in question?" To this interrogatory the jury 

4 fl«l E> 

no aes-fit^JE) toI ^t bnliso leil.^ala'xorl . 

-£>tad tbluoo i>rits i-adJ ; "n*© erf^"^ ',Jt'i nt&q a )os* ©rfa XI«o 

I enlisq boidllua fcna ,•rt>;^*U©^6rl^ tuoti aa •jol ir.ea ^X 

:c© cBW . ,X©ow £ ^ol J36nnt;tftoo nof^lilaTOo ©IrfT 

rioxxfv. , rori "io oi)la o«fo no aoeoo )1 odw ^^o4^ool> 

dinoet £ ^uorfa lol borf rtl Saoniame't erfC .e©0l* »«iff;t bao-^-il ©ri 

^A3 ijuis eoio'' lesrruoo a* 


-xuo nt trfolrfv . 

* i ij8<Q« ;tnjBX):i»'ioI eifi no-; 

aa tiitr: ^maob hmw ffoixic ^xtoim^O'ti&jctl Is- i 9Tfj3 

olrtJo - viwo«n awoIIoTt »r 

tolJa©up i I©^ ©ri^ Slrlay 


returned the answer, "Yea," Also at the request of the defendant 
the court gave to the jury the following special interrogatory: 
"Was the abscess of which the plaintiff oomplains a result of ar 
electrical shock received while using the telephone instrument in 
question?" and to this special interrogatory the jury returned the 
answer, "Yes," 

Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, with written 
reasons therefor. It did not, however, in this motion, or in the 
written reasons, or in any way whatever, move or request that the 
special findings or either of them be set aside, and there is no 
assignment of error in that regard* In this state of the record 
the defendant is conclusively boiind by these findings. (City of 
Aurora v. Rockabrand, 149 111. 399; Pennsylvania Goal Co. v Kelly, 
156 ill. 9; Empire Laundry Machinery Co, v. Brady, 164 111. 58; 
Voigt V, Anglo-American Provision Co., 104 111. App. 423; Pitts- 
burgh, C.C, & St. L. E. Co. V. Dovard, 121 111. App. 49; Tate 

V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 157 111. App. 105; Farrell v. Illinois 


Ttmnell Co., 177 111.^425.) The finding of the jury that plain- 
tiff received an electrical shook while usirg defendant's tele- 
phono instrument, which resulted in the injuries complained of, 
is binding upon the defendant. Therefore there is presented 
nothing for the consideration of this court which might require 
a reversal. The defects claimed to be in the declaration are 
cured by the verdict, and there vms no error in the trial court 
refusing the instructions //hich were refused. 

After the filing of the foregoing opinion, the defendant 
filed a petition for a rehearing, presenting the point that admit- 
ting the rule to be as stated above, yet where there is no evidence 
whatever in the record tending to support plaintiff's declaration, 
the trial court commits an error of law in denying the motion to 
instruct the Jury to find the defendant not guilty, and that by 

— 2- 

iaeispni drf* ia oalA ".aeT* ttawsna •tU becrwAi^i 

: \"i 

j^rrl li: 

•31 ynu; 

ngiJii* xl^fv. 



iq ^di ilotriw lo aa«o«d« erU 

a 1x14 a^ i)n« "Tnol^eeup 
• tisY" ttewana 

©fii anoeeei 


. 10 *! 

t fax Jniiitfifilefo ssii 

""I ».oO IX«amri 

; '- .III WM ,v' j-ih . , 

iiJ'. '-( ;-'-«^ .t/^A . . .... 

f^tonlLll .V Lie . ti WI 

-elei a'ctrrafcr ^litfw lioona LAoii^O'^le> tie i>«viao»T[ TXt:i 

9ii .'061 it J-ii.joo ej:f':.3 . J • 

01* noliB^iilo^sj 9iii cl &ci oi tHSiiiaio aJ . fT .Ijaeiava'x 

itijoo ialti 9fii ,it lotna on anTi snaxtJ Imijl i^ 

j»n oiew rfcidvi enoi-JoutJani ari^ s-^lajjl*:. . 
1 ;>ne1t»l» •i1^ . oriJ 1:o ;HiniiJtl ©xW i^. 

-iimbM iMtU ifiioq o. 'saiq ,3nJt*ijaarfeT b ioT: ao'ic^Teq ti bell' 

oojiablv© on al aiorliJ et-xedv iox ,evo<f« r^Ja^a 8« ad oi 6 

oS notiom teij ji^nlt^ie: -o -lome na ajiawoo Jit/oo Xttii^ ad^ 

vi iiiClS bnm t^illu^ Joa itu. ^Ai ball oi y^li^ Bdi iouiSaal 


duly excepting to this ruling of the court the right to have the 
ruling reviewed on appeal is preserved without the necessity 
of any fiorther motion, not even the motion for a new trial. There 
car be no doubt that this is the correct rule of practice. Pate 
V, Blair-Big Muddy Goal Co., 252 111. 198, 

A rehearing was allowed and additional briefs were filed 
by both sides, with special reference as to whether there was any 
legal evidence tending to prove the allegations of plaintiff's 
declaration, which warranted the court in denying the Taction for 
an instmictsd verdict and in permitting the jury to pass upon the 
issue as a question of fact. 

Plaintiff by her declaration alleged in substance care- 
less and improper management, operation, maintenance and con- 
trol of the telephone system, consKstlng of instrxmsnts, v^ires, 
plant and all the appurtenances thereto in the village of Oak Parle; 
that by reason thereof, while she -vas using the telephone, it trans- 
mitted a shock into her head, arms and body, with resulting injuries. 
There is abundance of evidence uncontradicted that when she used 
the telephone on the occasion in question she received a shook, 
indicated by her own statement that a cracking noise came from 
the receiver into her ear, tiiat she immediately got an intense 
pain "right through the ear," and could hardly hear for an hour. 
Other witnesses who observed her at the time said fhut she turned 
white, uttered a shriek, dropped the receiver ard threw herhand 
to her ear, saying that the receiver had hurt her ear, and that 
she appeared to be in pain. 

In addition to this there was teatimony tending to 
prove that at a point about twenty feet from the building in 
which was the telephone instrument in question, the telephone 
wire connected with the instrument v/as about aix inches from an 
electric light wire; that the wires came in contact with each 

rT ari^ 

'q to V. 

tnii a- 



"issenq «i I*«qgj8 no f>ewe±vei suiiiirx 

or^ , noli oar Tarf^fiol t^* ^o 

'I J-OHTioo offi / iAAS iduob on © / it«o 

, .oO I«oO yljhuM sla-ilalt-i .v 

» vo'iq . ^ lage i 

t1 brui ua9l 
IXfl Jbrta ;ffx»Iq 

^.afiE^ , /j.<*o©n orfi 

■I'vie £ 


<9w;r JuooA ;tntoq 

, rioiriv. 


other when the wind blew, and that sometinoo "boys would throw 
hoops against them to make them strike together; that the wires 
were gagging. 

There was also the teatimony of an expert to the effect 
that it was possible for the voltage of an electric light wire by 
contact to be transferred to a telephone wire and, coming into an 
inatrioinent over the telephone wire, to give a severe shock to any- 
one using it at the time ; that the ordinary current uaed in oper- 
ating telephone wirou of the Chicago Telephone Company was between 
30 and 40 volts, and that the current of an electric liglit wire was 
about 220 volts. 

The correct rule applicable to a motion to direct a ver- 
dict is, that admitting the evidence in favor of the plaintiff to 
bo true, does it, together with all legitimate conclusions which 
may bo dra'ism therefrom, fairly tend to establish the plaintiff's 
cause of action as laid in her declariation? If it does, then the 
court commits no error in i^efusing the motion and in pernittlr^ the 
facts to be passed upon by the jviry. It is not for the court to 
consider whether the evidence is .veak or strong, or whether or not 
discredit has been cast upon it by croBS-examination, All such 
raattei^B are for the jury to weigh and pass upon, Libby, iolleill 
& Libby V. Banks, 209 111. 105; iietropolitan IVest Side Elevated 
Ry. v. Fortin, 203 111. 454. 

V«'e are of the opinion that the evidence above referred to 
fairly comes within the rule announced, and that the court oominitted 
no error in refusing the peremptory instnaotion. In so holding, we 
are not looking solely to the evidence tending to sfiow only that 
plaintiff received a shock. iThat we should decide where this was 
the only evidence adduced by the plaintiff, we are not now prepared 
to state. We are moved to our conclusion, however, by a ccnaidera- 
ticn of the testimony concerning the contact of the sagging tele- 

99tyq mav* Si ttMl^ 

l9i **i 

f 8A rf'. 


rfoue II.', 


.Ill «0{; .ntitoH 

ew t^nitlofi ^ 


iS «I(i*T «rii ftlrCi f v. «& 

Tronn« on 


phone and electric light wirea, and the result therefrom to any 
one using the telephone instrument. This consideration makes in- 
applicable the theory of defendant's counsel that its defense is 
not a defense which contradicts but "one which confesses and avoids 
the evidence on behalf of the complainant," We do not understand 
that defendant corf eases the contact of these two wires, but that 
it rather seeks to contradict by its evidence this vital point. It 
therefore follovfs that Wallner v. Chicago Gonaolidated TraotionC©,, 
245 111. 152 is not in point, which case might properly be character- 
ized aa one in which the defense was not of contradiction but of 
confession and avoidance. 

This evidence concerning the contact of the two wires also, 
in our opinion, takes this case out of the re s ipsa loqiiitur class. 
Evidence that the wires had been in the condition described for 
two years or more before the accident, directly tends to prove 

The clain that there is no evidence whatever that the 
shock received by plaintiff caused the injiiries complained of, is 
answered by the application of the rxile stated in Chicago Union 
Traction Co. v, 2>!ay, 221 111. 530, and Greinke v Chicago City Ry. 
Co., 254 111. 564, which is that evidence of a condition of good 
health prior to an accident, and illness and poor health immediate- 
ly succeeding, it, ia sufficiert evidence from w}iich the jury might 
legitimately conclude that the latter condition v/as caused by the 

E'or the reasons given above and in our previous opinion, 
the judgment will be affirned. 


■J ■." . 'ob:; 

Jiianl »noriqeX«i erli sniai; eao 

&di to 11 

■o Milt r- '.^i>i-ij1c 


U<Olik>Ju»i /_! 

eooira '. f 


^^Octol-er Terra, 1912. No. 
lOe . 18557 

D«fenattp In Errcr, ) 

r I ^".trot to 

v«. / ) Municipal Court 

. / / of Chicago . 

> J, F. ISOPAtf, / ) 

N. ' PlaWitlff in Frrcr. ) 





I.A. 49 

Oeur.9«l for lh« vi«?ffr).jant in errcr L«r«ir! haa aovet^ 
"^ tJaie court Ic elrikc Tt<i». tl;e reoord the $it«ncgrav£iio r«pcrti cr 
<vn 8tat«m«nt of facte herein, artd ur<f«« s cumber of pcint« in sup- 
V- port cf tiiip Biotion. 7« shall cornicar only one cf tn«m, 
'f ^5 A final 3u<jgK«rt wa« 9nt«r«d on April 6, 191.'i, and unaer 


I the 9ts!tut« tiiO vsfler^ographic T«pfrt phruld have been fil»a -ryithic 
V ■ 
\ r^x thirty daye tL«reafter, or within *uch extendeJ ti«;e ae the ccurt 

^ rslght within tLirty days? .^llcw. ^iihlB thirty Jayfl a sixty aay 

extenaion c'" tiii.© waij duly ijrarted, -vir, icL exrir^u July 5, 1912, 

Upcr, r«f«rrir;!^ tc ti.a etencgraphic report wa fiivi that tne trial 

K^ judg«f oertlfieu that it «?a? jr«s9Rt«*'.! to birr, in cpfjis ocurt tc- be 

s,^ eigrittj 9i;a plaoea en file on Jiine ■■:l";, 1912, um or: ti^te nasias uay 

J ths trial jujigft eigned t'i<s ,rr;ce»?'i'ry ■^5*rtiric'*td tc tlio affect 

^ that it ';vap a correct ot^fiCgraphio rspcrt of th*s proo«eciiR;ie at 

;x^ ^rial. Thoro?s,f ter, cr ?«brvr;ry 3, l'~13, 'xn orJor -a® entered 

\ tliat tbe "bill cf axes? tior<? tfl? *"n«'.i nunc rro tunc as cf June .OB, 

■^^■^ 1912." Aftervparle, en ?ecru9ry S, 1"13, -^rs orUsr ■«S9 '^:r:tsrc>.! by 

cn« cf the juageB c** the yuricipal Court V'icating arxi «ettin,j jiSide 

tLfc orvi«r allowing dsCenaant tc file "till cf BXo«»f:tioni^ rmr^o pro 

tunc an cf June ^;t, 19ir::." Afterwar-i??, cr. ?'«bruery 7, I "13, a?-, cr- 

aer was enters. v by <ynn cf tfc?i JuJi^qb of the Mvriicylfuil "curt, who 

!\, wa»? not th« Juuge eerorc whc!;- th**. trial cf th« 'j^m wo^^ had, order- 

pN Ir.g that tLe ©toncgraphic rwfo.rt fco filed nimo £iro tunc a*> cf Juri* 





22, 191S, and ti.« fll« aairJ' on tb« i<?t»nosraT.'liic reptrt ie, *^il«d 
pttcc rrc tupc a? r f Jure S^, I'^V^, ^ot. 7^ 1^13, the Kuricipal 
Court cf Chicago, ^rartV T, Danieoh, Clerk." 

We muBt tnke thf? recent h«r«ln an a true recitation cf 
tbt fyctB, and frcB this it ar^^^nra liist tii« »t«nogrsphic rerct 
wa« presented to ti.e trifil jui?s or June 3", 191S, ar.a Pis^neu by 
hie cr th« )»ame day. This dat") 7»as ^^flthln ti:® limitntion of the 
tice cf th<j oruer exterscJlrg the timo. '^e ff.uRt therefore aeeiawe 
that after the Plfning tho otenographio repcr'« «*ip 'ieliveroa to 
the attcrTiey, ^ica iLal it wan not tfcrougi* any fwult of the ^uage 
but «oX©ly throufL tiistl of thft attorney tfc^>t it w?i5' noi fll«a un- 
til rMorly eigixt ssonth^ thereitfter* 

Thifv eltu&ticn fall© ©«;u?ireiy within tli« r«apcrii?}g ancl 
oenolueicr of this court sp announced in ll?t opinion in Chicago & 
Fiv«rcl?}5e Lumbar Cc. v. '^aral-e et aU, 17v 111. »pr. 4r, yrners 
the praotioe with r*?f9r«noe tr facts <?imilnr tc ihc^n no^ biSj.'"cr© 
ue wa« ■Jit?cue'^«<;j at length. In that C'^ko th« stfttsss^rt cf facta 
wftj? signed on January 8, ini3. Th'S liffi« "or filing expirea Jur.uary 
ICth, but ii wa» rrt ri:i«J until March S8, l'-13; nui w*? tLere i^rtia: 
•The certificai*? of the juage aho.^e that It wa? ir fc^ot Pi?j;eJ en 
JtiHuary Hh ; sns:J therefore, if %h--^ tri^l judge j:3d «r.t*reM ^n order 
on V.arch 28, 1-13, r-«mittir:v; tf.C' G«rtifl<^^t© to be fil^ia nuro ^m, 
tur.Q , a^.? cf Jfinuary 6tt, p-vcL an crcl«r •?oul i be vol i ar:;l f r no ef- 
fect bac^^use entere..i at a ti^o tvhen tne oourt Ji<>'.j lo^t ?ai juris- 
diction si.r)i control cf th« rr^ii^ttor. * '^cr a full ^tatsicy^rjnt of cur 
reasons for tLis cone lu« ion ?fe rtfar tc t,r.e opirucn ir. that caae. 

Holding afs ■»« Uo, th-.?t cisr conolueicn in the case aiteci 
wac ocrrsot, mi an it fits «quare]y the f^cts befcr« ue, th« ;r.ctioB 
to etri1^:e this stencgraphio r^rcrt frcu; the racor.* will Ufi tillow«d, 
fe t?.i^Lt aUo add th^t what i# p.hU in t;ie Garside oa^e crncerning 
thy effect o^ sffiiavite upon th© <?t<jtairsr:t" .^prfsaring in ths' re- 
corU ic^ applioabl^ to the Ritusticn re* unier QOfialdero tiers. 

Ir= the absBonce cf sny ctencgraphic report, s?« fir?'- no er- 
ror*' in th!? ocffimcn la^ record, ana tha pi,\pn)Gnt ®ill tL*r»fcre b« 
affirmed. A??IPMFD. 

la Mill 

et^t j 


er.Term, 1912. lio. 
SO - lf?235, 


Defondw^.t In Error/ ) 

/ ) 

y* I ) err(:r to 

JOUB iU FIPPI*:CiuR, proaidentJ ) SliPffiUOR COURT 

; PHIUtP H, KOHRKLL, ol^rk, JUlhXiil ) 

J. FliAviK, JOHR CrLGii, Jr., CJJl^UilLti* ) 

HAANKK, and ilrinKY SOIiWriaN, /as ) 

ma»bera of the ^ioard of Trustees of ) ^ T A ^ Q 

the villas© of Bellwood, Il^-inols, ) ^^ J- •xl« <u O 

arsii ai3 nonbora of the >oard of Local ) 

I.-iprovementa of said 'llla|);e, ) 

Plaintiffs in isjTor. ) 

\ / 


on Jaraiarjf 26, 1911» Otto Geierabaoh filed his petition 
praying that a writ of eaandajaua iasue against plaintiffs In er- 
ror, reopondents below, to which petttior a denurror w;i3 subse- 
quently sustained* On i^aroh 18th, Joiersbaoh filed an arended 
petition pz*a|ring that tiie writ b© directed to said reopondents 
"coEBsanding then as^ eaoh of th««3 to tal^re the necessary stepa to 
put into collection the said aaoeaatgent, krown ao Bellwood :.peci^, 
?!©• S, and to iasue to petitioner th© proper vouohera for work 
and labor done and tnaterlal used to the asjourt of 11546 .n^, and 
for such further order as ja^y be fsade in the prsraisea." To this 
amended petition a general anl special dorairrer was filed, ^loh 
was overruled, sand on July 12, loil, the reupondents electing: to 
8rtar.d by tiieir decaarrtir, the court ad.1udKed "that a writ of rsan- 
daisus do isaue herein, and that the potitlcnar do have and re- 

^ cover of and tT<m the respondmito hla cos to and churpiea in this 
behalf expended", to the entry of which Jiaign^nt the rcspondenta 
excepted. On ieptetabor ;JOth, a laotion to vacate the ^utigsnert was 
denied, and on October ?rd the writ of nand asus was lesued and 

^ subsequently seized* Th^ writ ccras^orKled thj^-t the respondonte, 
ar^ eaoh of thers, "au cjembsrs of the iSoard of Trustee r* of the 


•it» ,t5*» 

Vlllftgo Of Bellwood nrtd as? iaoi?^borB of ths I3oard of Local Ira- 
proverjcmta" of said Tillage* do ieeue without delay to said 
O«l»r»baoh •vouchors and o«rtlficat08 for work and labor done 
taxiA saterialB used to the aiootoit of ;^1»54^>»63*« and "take the 
reoeosury steps to put into Innediato oollaoitcr; Uio ap^olal 
aseeasTs^n.t knowt as Bollvood iipeolal Ho« 3» as re^ueatad by %tm 
asid Otto Oelerabach," The respondents seev by this writ of «v- 
ror to reverse the Judsr^Hit. ~" 

The anended petit !<»: alleged In si^bstanoe that eaid 
villase vas a immlolpal oorporatii^^ ar^i had beer for xsore than 
three years last past; that the boea*d of trustees ooRcisted of 
eald Flpplnger, prealdewt, said Korrell, olerk, atsS the othor 
r©3p<»Td©nt3 naned as aesber® thereof? that mild reapondentst ac- 
cepting ilenry Sohwerln, wers the fse^sbere of tJ«> board of local is- 
proveraemts of said vllla{;et that on Bcv^sbor 18, r,*OB, the pi-os- 
ident arid board of truartees of sold village passed an ordinance 
for the construction of a oessnt sidewalk on Wmfi%f^tttth avsaiu© 
and certain other streets, and that said ordinance was duly pub- 
lished aocordlBg to the statute. A copy of t^^e oiHiinsrce, to- 
gether with a copy of the recoeEseysdations of eaid boiird of local 
iffiprovetsoRts, and an estiisat© by the ©r-gineer of said beard of 
the probable cost of the IsE^rovement, aa Jif1:,©r£rarda approved by 
both boards, v&ra attaoliCd to the petition arsi r^ade a part Usereof. 
It was provided in tlje ordinance that the special aasoassrsa^t ohould 
be payable and should ba colieotod in or.© pay®ont, rhe petition 
further alleges in mibat&noe tf--Jxt th& vlllai^e, by ita attorney, 
filed a petit icTi in t^a9 ;;ounty court of Cook sounty, February 9, 
1909, praying that steps be taken to levy a apodal acseaanent 
for said iEg>poveK}ent, srhloh petition wtuj kncafn aa iiellaood .special 
no. 3; that on April 5th the assessne^^t roll, d'jly sade ar^ oer- 
tlfled,was filed, and that on iiay 5th, no objections Imving beon 

•<i l" f -*rt ■i-T.^'T 

<.* (>• ■■> 

•on C^ 

ixi'.I »nrf,v'ii:Y<i 

..C lo --ti^rrt"' 


fllady th« aaaeesment «aa duly ocnfln^kl by ti» oourt: that 
on i^ju^at iind» the secretary of said board o: looal inprovei?!©nts 
vaa directed to advertise for bids on all unfinished sidewalks 
provided for in said epeolal aeseesnert^ oald bids to be opened 
at 8 o'clock on the evening of Aii^ust 13th, tJist a copy of tiua 
notice att^'tohed t the petition in J3ade a part rhereof, amX that 
8uch notice was duly published and posted in accordance with the 
etatute; that petitioner eulxaitted u aoaled bid for the laying 
c-f eaid aidemilka and that on said evening; at a sseetlng of eaid 
board of local iisprovertenta the bids were oi>ened ajid that there 
were but two bids, one of which araa that of petitioner s^loh vma 
a the rate of 10 l/2 oenta per aquaro foot; that petitioner's 
bid was the lowest and that* by unanlsKBis vote of said board, hia 
said bid "was accepted and the contract therefcar warded to your 
petitioner» providing that he furnish a certifiea check to be 
approved by the presldertt of said board*, and Jia was "then aaid 
there notified of the aooeptiiree of his bid hy said board"? th&t 
he req[uested said board to druft and fiimlah hiw with & proper 
contract and stated that he ^fould in all terr-i? oor?ply tJ^rewlth 
and fumlah the requital te 80<»3rity? thst. ne endeavored to secure 
a written contract froK ©aid board »xxd the sttomey thereof, who 
infciTsed hin "that the entering into a srltten contract and bond 
beti»eim said villar© and your potltioner iffas entirely imneceanary, 
and that he omtld after notice proceed ? the fulfilment of the 
work*? that ho advieed other aejabers of said board of thalr fail- 
ure to provide a vrritten contract aM that they each irtfcnaed his 
thai it would be unneoeasary for hie; to enter Into a'ach contract 
in writing, or to furnish such seciarity, hv.t that he ^rould bo paid 
without ®joh conditions for all ffcrl? done on said ^aiks and for 
material fiamlahed by hits? and timt "the notice of the ssrarding 
of aiich oor.troct to petitioner by salvl board was duly piiblished 

and post«d by said board according; to the otatute.* TMs Xast 
allegation diaol08«3 that the- ono oauae for sp«cial de nirr«r 
•tatdd in r«apondent»» doJiairrer to said petition, viz: "that 
petitioner has not alleged > « that notice of the awarding of the 
contract »aa posted and publlslied according to la«*, ic arithout 
foundation. The petition further alleged that none of the prop- 
erty oaanera with a frontage or aald streets el&oted to take aaid 
work thetraelres within 10 days or to oossrasmoe aarae arithin 30 days 
after said publication of said award to petitioner; that aft«r 
the acoeptar.ce of his bid the said president of the board of trus- 
tees and the laeabero thereof requested petitioner to oosasence %ork 
on the various alde^alka^ and petitioner was again adviaed by thffl» 
that It waa unneceaefiry for hi© to obtain a «rltt©R contract, that 
"they «ould waive said contract sr^ bojr^d", that he ^oiild proceed 
at once with the wortr, and that under said Instructiono and otrders, 
arai in aocordanoa with the ter^a of said ordinance, h© proceeded 
to lay said sldesralka under th© direction of said village ?^ard, 
the board of local Icaproveraenta, and one Chtirlea Droasandsr, proo- 
ident of both lK>arde, and one c. h» Holter vho had hBmi authorised 
to superintend and Inspect th© conatintctlon and tU© doirsg of said 
serif; that petitioner "furnished th© materials, cor-aplled fully 
slth the toma of tiie ordinance, oorir-let Qd the_ a ai d gor:k _ construct- 
ed (contracted) for by his, arxl Ute game iras d^;ly aoeepted by the 
aaid superintendent, the president of said board us^A tlio village 
of Bell wood and by Its boards and each of thais* ; that on or- about 
Hovesibar 1, K;0S, p^stltioner personally appeared beforo aaid boards 
and dermndod a certificate, ahowlr*^ the work done by hijs and the 
aiaourt due hln, but that the siAd board of local improvements and 
the said president iind boari of trustees refiioed, and still do 
reftise, to Isaue any certificate to i^etitioner, ^or to taJre the 
neoeoaary steps to put into collection the aaid special aasesanonf. 


for the purpose of paying- p©tltlc«ier for the vsoi* and labor 
dono and th« material* fural^:ed by petitioner for aald In^rove- 
axantsy in acoordanoe sith the statute ssad© and provided* by Koana 
whereof petitioner i» prevented frosj reoeivin^ t)» varrarto and 
vouchors due hi© for aaid labor ani materials, to wJ^vloii he is law- 
fully «»ntitled* The petition was verified. It ia to be notioed 
that petitioner doedi not in eaid petition atat© any definite 
aiiiount whi^ he claims to be due him tar said work imd rsaterlals. 

The writ of pandtigtua ciay be resorted to to oo^pel a 
▼illar,© to proceed to enforce t^e oolloctic?^ of a apeclal aaseea- 
rsent If it haa failed tc discharge its duty in that respect. <Seo, 
75 Loo&l loprovesent Act; shannon v» vjlla^a of iJinsd&le, leo 
111. 202, 208; People v. tflty of l*ontlac , IPS 111, Al57f City of 
Alton ▼• Foster , ao? 111. 150; Conv?ey v. city of ^loarot 2?? 
111. 128, 135; Price v. City of Elfjin, 2^^7 111. ^3, iW). By 
their deraurror the respondento adsjitted auch facts stated in t'r^ 
petition ao vera sell pleaded, and »s are of tfm opinion that the 
allegation© of the petition sufficiently show, at least aa aj^ainst 
a general derwrror, isixch a state of facts as er»titles petitioner 
to a arit of laandatme co*s?»ndlng reopondent© to ta>:« tJte necessary 
steps to put into oclleotlor; the said 0pesial asisess'^er.t* 

It la contendetl by coansel for respoindentis that, bec'V.?a© 
Uie petition ahow« that the bid of petitioner sa3 Jiot acoo«tparled 
by oash or a certified oh&tk in aoocrda.nce ajth the statute and 
because the petition shosa that petitioner never obtsineri a forssl 
written contract, the psetit loner la not entitled to any of the 
relief prayed, ite ©ea'aiot agre© >r.lth counsc*!, it apT>e&r3 that 
the aealed bid of petitioner, unaocosipanled bv cash or a certified 
check, a?aa accopted by tho villr^^e, th-it petitioner mxs told that 
the algrslng of a fonaal i?rlttan contract wfi.3 unneoessary, ard theit 
Uve notice of the as«fcrdlr4- of the contract to j^et It loner wan duly 

publlsh«>d and posted. The aeoepictRoe of j>«tltlon«r*s written 
bid as node oonstitut^d a oontr&ct between the parties, ( parlf 
O OBmtaaionera v. Camody, 139 ill. App. SS5, 84C.) which the 
mmiclp&ilty had the power to caake. The fact that certain re» 
<|ulred for«alitiea were not ooraplied wlUi should not Hllltat© 
against the petitioner, especially where It further appears that 
both parties acted on Uie etssiunption that a valid contract had 
beer, entered into, and the village received the benefits of the 
contract. ?etitlor>er, Ir aocordai-'ce with thQ ordinance, pro- 
ceeded to lay and did lay the sidearalks under the »ip$rlntcndenoe 
of agerte for the villarje, oorspletQd the work contracted for, ai^ 
the work was aooeptod by the village, we think that reapo^nderTte 
are estopped fross setting up t^ie irregtilar laamer in which the 
contract waa entered into, ao a def^i^e to the isaimnce of a 
«rlt of aandaimia oosaanding thess to take the necessitry steps to 
put into coli^otiCHR the said special assessment. { oralni^ge iJoe?~ 
aissionera v. Lewis , lOl ill* App. igiO, insj county of aoles v. 
Goehring, 209 111. 142, 165; Ol t y of Ohicago v. Plttaburg, etc. 
Ky. Go., 244 HI. 220, 252). 

the judgsaent of the cotar»t in t' Is cose was ttmt a writ 
of taardamus "do issue herein*, otc, arKi it is contended that 
the Judgnent i» defectivo In that it does not specify what the 
respondents are to do. auoh an order is ?x>t defective shere the 
prayer of tins petition is clear and specific. ( ^;ity of aeg^eva v. 
People, 98 111. App. 315, 51*7; Haines v. People, 19 ill. App. 354, 
S'^S. ) *rht» rule is, that th© entry or a Judficiont Eai^st be either 
perfect in itsslf or be capable of bt*ln£. smde p*irf©ct by refsrsnoe 
as to other parts of the record in the case, or ^ the papers on file 

in t e particular action. * ( (iaines v. F«oplq , aupra. ) Keferrlng 
to the pray«r of the petition »b firjd Uuit the coiart la raqueai 
to isisue a larrit cojajrsandin^ the respondents, (1) "to ta>?e the 

:i to 



ndcaas&ry atepo to put into oolltsoticn the said asaeaemwit*, 
and {;s) "to issua to p©titlon«»r the proper vouohez^s for work 
and leibor done and matoriala ueed to th* arsount of $1546 .aS*. 
We do not think that the court, imdor tho allegntiora of tho 
petition, vrould b« juatifiod in directing r«8pond« to iasuo 
Youohora to petitioner in said unount, but ee are of the opinion 
that the court could hav« properly ooraimnded that rospondanta do 
Ui« otJifer acta isentloned. *a writ of nandaraua may b« isaurnl for 
a part of the rolisf aaketl", ( IXXinoiu ,.'a,t^. Ja3# a_o . v, Poarsony 
140 ill. 4i;5, 433; People v. i.^&^-'d of oupsrviaora, 2o4 111. (j2, 
&7,) And, under ths facts a^a disoloaad fros tl^ admitted allega- 
tiona of the petition, fche prayer that respondents be ootJiraanded 
by the oourt "to take the neceaeary step© to put Into oolleotion 
the aaid assesanent, Knossn as Bellvoo.?. Special Ko. 3*, is auf- 
rioi^ntly specific. ( Paople v. w^bb, £56 111. '^m-, m9,) Irsao- 
.Tiuoh as the order of the -soiirt ^as in effect that the «rlt do 
iaoue aa prayed, smd as petitioner was not entitled to all the 
thifM^e he aslced for but ssfaa entitled to a portion of the relief 
prayed, »e think it pj'oper for us to ns'v&rno anci rf^tsand the 
oas© with dire-tiona that tlie trial court onter the proper judg- 
ment. ( A?G?iulta V. ERSoh; i;:>i ill. 'U!;, i^6; School Pi at riot v. 
tsohool District, 3S Jolo. -r., 5i.) The judgsant cr the Superior 
court is accordingly reversed and the cause r<irnasid®d, arl the 
iiuperior court i^^ directed to ent^r Jiid}?,ffient in proper form com- 
laanding respondents and each of thsrs to taVe th® necessary steps 
to put into collection the aaid asaessjsent fenca^ as aell'sfood 
Special iSo. 3. 

SEvaisso Am umAimm} with muE^imz* 


.Hi •». 


'■ii4k ml .' 
^nooo let- 

otoDsr Term, 1912. IJo." 

42 - 184'^. y 


KOI3» for use of the .iTATS ) 

BOARD OF H?:aL r;l, ) ERiK^K TO 

Defendant In aahror, ) 


va« ) 

) 0? OKICAOO. 

FRA^fK KLirti-JC, ) 

PU..««in.^r. , 4I.A. 59 


Ihia Is ar. action of Vba fourth oXass ootccttmodd in 
Hie Municipal Ocurt eS uhloago against Fr^ik KliRofe, defmnd- 
ant« to recover tJio mm of |i200 as a penalty for the second 
off<m3e of violating the act to regulate the practice of raedi- 
cine in this state, approved ixpril ii«l, 1999, the particular 
violation charged bein^, th^^t of praoticlnir ssedicine iitlwut a 
llc«nse« The Jury returned a ver^iict flMir^'; the deferdar.t 
guilty and that he hed been previoiioly convicted of practicing 
"^ed'cine in this state without a license, and as8e«alng a fine 
of 'rSOO ag'iinat hiK, Jud^nent sas entered on the verdict, 

T«c ifitneaoe- for the People toatified tc the effect 
that on Kovepsber iJ, 1911, the defemdant praotioed ??©dlcine. 
There wan aiao introduced a record of XY^^ Municipal :<>«rt of 
Chicago to the effect that in case ?io, 3 14, "82, ea^.titled People , 
etc« V, Frani: jCliasek , or. 'ay p., 1911, the defendant «^s found 
guilty by a Jury of a violation of said act to regulate the prac- 
tice of E;<sdicin© in tlila atata and aaaeKS&d a fin* of ^;100, and 
that judgment waa entered or the firding arxl satisfied. Two 
witneasea, i-cluding defendant, testified on bshalf of defend- 
ant, but defendant introduced no ©vidc-nce tc show that ho had 
ever received a liceanae fror^ said Gtate card of h'eaith. 

It is contended by counsel for d^f'^ndar.t tliat t>ie judg- 
nert should be rovers od becauoe the People failed to prove that 



"'X - s^ 

'0% a$ 

UQ£ c 



defendant had no licenao to practice modlclne. Th© burden 
«as upcn the defendant to show tlmt h9 had such a licenee. 
(1 c;r«enloaf on Svldonoe, 3»c. 79; Wllll&auB v. Peoplo, SO 111, 
App. S2» S5; 121 111. 84, l?Ot Koecker v. Peoplo, 91 111. 44?e? 
Kettlea v. People, ;i2l 111, 221, iiS^,) 

rh« trial court orally inetruoted the jury that the 
People •rmast prove their oase by a clear preponderance of the 
ovldonce", ard it is contended that the Jury should have been 
inatruotod that the chiirg© a^inat the deftmd&nt should be 
proved beyond a reaaonable doubt. In our opinion the contention 
ie without raerit. Thl» lo not a criminal prooeedinf^, "It was 
not a oriroe at corsroon law to practice ijaedlcino without a license, 
and the statute does not raake it a oriise. Where an offense ie 
created by statute and a penalty i« fixed for its coBBuiaaicai, 
which is to be recovereil by an action of debt and not by prose- 
cution, the action le civil and the rult^s of criminal pleading 
and procedure do net apply tc it". ( People v, -urtGratfein, 248 
111. Mt?, 561; A'ebster v. People ^ 14 ill. :^'35, 3*7.) 

The trial coxirt further Inatruotvi th« jury tlif.*t if they 
found the defendant guilty in this procoedir?;- they should "aliso 
find that the defendant haa been previously convicted of practic- 
ing fTcidiclne in the Jtate of Illinois without a licenj?© so tc do*. 
It ia contended t? at U^e trl^^l court «rr«ci in directing the jixry 
to find that the def^nd^^u-t fn^d betm pr eviouitly ocnvlcted of prac- 
tialng s?©di*ine without a license, .he argurc^rt i=! that th© rso- 
ord of tho Municipal Coiirt intrclucM in evidence only 0bow@d 
thfit on ?.&ay 6, 1911, ths defendant ws^= found /julity of '*a viols- 
tion of" said Act ar^i did not show fSi&t the particular violation 
conolet'ed of, viz: sfliether defendant practiced teedioino without 
a license or whether deferxlant as. an itinerant verder violated 
t-'ie provisions of ooction 8 of said Act. In our opinion, the 

**^i> Attt Ttoqa asv 
• Ho a Jon 

i.t lo M 
*^*> ^ to ijui 

"' io no It' 

• '•■ '■ t^ ,?. £ a 


c rtentlon i.« without morlt In this court. At the concliiolon 
of th© trial court's ertire ch.arfi© to Ui© jury, the only objec- 
tion nad© by the dofendart waa to those portions "rogordinf, thtj 
preporderanco of the evidence". The objoctior which la her':^ ssade 
for the firat tl^ «as not specifically called to the attention 
of the trial oourt. (Peouraro v. Holberg, 246 111. 95, 97.) 
We cannot say that the veniict is rttarlfestly against 
the weight of the evidence. And we have cortaldered the other 
point© raised by counaol and aro o'' the opinion that no prejudicial 
error was cosiraittiKi oy th© trial court. The judgment is there- 
fore affirmed. 

■^'U Jk V -i C^« V £ 

V «-<• *rt 

.-,r ?^:>?^ .JfiXtt Ull* tot 

.00 cam i0Tt» 

OctGcsr Teriu, 1912. iTo.' / 

73 - 1B517. / 

030 AS D. 0L30K, f-Jxecutcr of /l 

the will of GEOR;!!: B, rrlBiOK, / 

deceasod, / 

Plaintiff ir /^ar^i*, 



PK"M5YLVANIA COMPAflY, a oorpor- 

"^ Dofersiant in ISrror, 




T.A. 60 



This la an action' ©f the foiirth class, cots?iercod in 
th© Mimlcipal Couri of Chicaf;© on Geptecjber 13, 1911, by Oscar 
i). Clson, as executor of the eatate of leor^e ;*, 'ibson, de- 
ceased, against the P«tn8ylvania Company, defendant below, to 
recover the suis of $350.35, together with Interest, wfeicsh said 
sua (ao plaintiff claissod) oibs<»i had or. deposit at the tiiro of 
his death, April 1, 1P09, in the Entployees* Saving i\ind of the 
Penneylvania Lines w©3t of Pittsburg. The nature of the defence, 
aa disclosed by the affidavit of nerits of the defendant, waa 
that said suri of ^?^50.3? ^'as never a part of the estate cf said 
deceased, that plaintiff n^-v^T had any interest therein, that 
shortly after tho death of eaid deoe^eed th»s defendant paid s-iid 
eyra to th© rtother of deceased, Sara-h A. l.ibaon, who waa rightfully 
entitled thereto, and tiiat said payment to the nothsr was rmdo 
\f^ and with the consent and approval of the plaintiff, aa executor. 

It atjpears fror; thte transeript of the record tr;at on 
Bovesbor 6, ir/ll, a certain stipulation of facts waa filo^i 
in the office of the clerk of the ^'imlcipal Court. It further 
appears frosn aaid tranocript that on Harcli 8, 1912, the hear- 
ing of the oauae before tl^ coiirt without a Jury »as resumed, 
and that the court foimd the issues against the plaintiff and 
on tlie earn© day overruled defendant* a ©tlon for a n©« trial 


ilq tm) oua 

■^'S \o ftrr 

to /Tto erti Ri 


tand entered a Judg^nent that plaintiff taKe nothing and that 
defendant hav© and recover fron the plaintiff its coats, etc. 
It furUier appears from said trar script that on April 
5, 1912, plaintiff waa given thirty daya* additional time within 
irtiich to file a "bill of exceptlcme" , and that aftoraards, on 
May 7, 1912, a certain * atatoMont of facts", certified to by 
the trial jud^e, was filed In the office of the clerk of oald 
court as follovs: 

■This cause casje on for hearing on the Bth 

day of Hovenber, A,,., ICll, ard both thes pl&lrtirf crtd 
defendant were present in open court and repreasnted by 
oounael. Gaici causes v»aw heurd by the vicurt without a 
jury on the herelnbeforo contained stipiilaticn of facts 
and upui; th© ur JuT-^J.-rUo ' "of Gcuno'el . lio evid«5nce w^^e of- 
fered in court by either the plaintiff or defendant, 
save tlio stipulation of fiiCtc, ar^i thereupon the . l;J.n- 
tit'f rested aisi the def^ndaant also rested, and U^ieretapcn 
the ooi^rt found tliS issues for th@ defendant tj^xi entered 
Judi^sent on the findln*^ for costs in favor of defendant 
and agalnat the plaintiff." 

rhe stipulation of facta referrad tc in caid '^atate- 
ssent of facta* is not appended to or ir any way nade & part of 
aald "atateinent of fa-oto". A stipulation of facts, pU2*portlng 
to h& tsigned by the attcxm^s for tho reapectivs parti o a, ap- 
pears in tho transcript of the rocord aa having b^s'^ filed In 
aaid cauae on Hov&Tibor B, lail, but that doe a ret raal^e it a 
part of tho record »o aij to b« subject to oxaminaticr. by thic 
court* ( ah JcaQO^ et o. hy, -.o» v. j^nl-uiK, ..„'> ill- App. 24 C; 
Wilson v « ?oL'Qwell, ^5 111. V>Z2; People v. I. A >.t. L. R. ^'- 0.. . 
Co. , 1;-;;.; ill. 501? Gaston v. I^odem ^vc-odi?ien of /.r^tfrlca, llfi 
111. App. 291; Hayaer v. Modem iirothferhood of Asigrica, 157 
all. i\pp. F>10, 517.) iVnd d locunent or iratruTaent cannot b© 
incorporated in a bill of exceptions by reference thereto. 
jU£li3h_v. Gity of ChlOfago, £19 111. 135, 137; Fntr^ v. Pity 
of ahio:^go, i216 111. r>B7, 688; liennes^sy v. .-a tz>;Qr, nO 111. 
App. 5S3.) .itjI in the absence of a * correct atate:r.or:t of tho 





facta appearing upon the trial* It must be prosiuned by thla 
court that thoira was mxttlolent evidence to warrant the find- 
ing, and jud^jent. { Ghice^go, etc. , Ry, Cc» v. tjenhara , aijpx-a ; 
wllson v » ' cDo»ell> oupi^; Lindgr«i v. 3wartz» 49 111. App. 
4n8« ) The jvidgBi««.t io alYirnod, 



Jt •X&li' 

■If ■'irii:-; 

..-•u. ^_ 

> tneUi 


ia^ d , 

.■_.:-■= -o-'-/ 



■^'l tna yii 

-1I-: .V -i'.y.£l 


Octccor Terc, 1912. >To." / 
90 - IB5S4. / 

/ , 184I.A. 61 

Plaintiff lii LTror, ) ERROR TO 

w, / 5 tsnnciPAi. oouRT 

/ ) 


DdfondAit In Error. ) 


this writ of error ia pz*os90uted by K. ^;azzar«lla, 
plaintiff bole*, to reversso a judgment for ^20 rendered again&t 

) hln and in favor of Olives Kasboroa, dofesndant below. 

it appeao'a from the transcript of the record that plain- 
tiff oosaaenced an action of the fourth olaus, in contract, in 
UiQ Mtinioiped Court of Chicago against tho defendant, claiming 
tliat the sua of $50 waus due hia for certain norohandise sold and 
delivered to the defendant; that the defendant entered hia ap- 
pearance ani filed a atatenent of aet-off or counter-clain;, in 
arhioh he acUeitted thcit he ovsed plaintiff the said sua of -^50, 
but olairaed that becauas of a transaction imotamected with plain- 
tiff's oauae of action plaintiff i^as indebted to hi^, in the def- 
inite stiBj of t^Ot and that plaintiff owed hira a bal?«ic© of #20; 
that tc this state*-'snt of aet-off the plaintiff filed fxn affi- 
davit of raoritB, in irhioh plaintiff dll not dispute the artount 
of the defendant's claijs cf set-off, vis: $70, but made certain 
allegations wfcloh, if proved, wcixld have tended to sIjOw that plain- 
tiff was under no obligation to pay defendant the said aura of ;;^0. 

K " It further appears froa said transcript that on iarch 

S, 1912, the trial of the cause was reaiitned before the coturt 
without a Jury and that the court, after hearing; the evidence 
and the arguptents of coun^^el, found the issues jigainst the plain- 

^, tiff on defendant's claim of set-off arvi aBse«sed the defendant's 


: <t*i£, ■'■■ 

ii&itl -fofrtw 

damages at th« sum of |20, and ©nterad .ludcrnent on the finding. 

W© t&il to find in said transcript of the record any 
Btaterssnt o^f tho facts appearing upon tho trial, or any steno- 
graphic i»eport of th« proooedinga, or any bill of oxceptiono, 
aignad by the trial J\«ige, 

It is contended by counsel for plaintiff that th« oourt 
orred in denying plaintiff's notion to strike the defondant^a 
statoment of aet-off froH the files. The transcript of the record 
doea not disclose that «uch jaotion and ruling ware inado. 

It ia also contersied ttet the oourt erred in entering 
the judgraant booauae dofwidant's counter-olaira waa for unliqui- 
dated darnagea arising out of a contraot unconnected with the 
subject Matter of pljiintiff's auit and, therefore, tshb not the 
proper atibjeot of aet-off. vre cannot say that defendant^a countsr- 
elaiia was for unliquidated damages. 

In Robison v. Kibba, 40 111. 4Da-S, the word "liqtiidated" 
ir. defined to Tmur>. "that which is made certain and sanifeHt; as 
liquidated danagea, ascertained dariageaj liqtiidated debt, or 
ascertained debt ar, to aKOvait", and an "unliquidated olalr'.'" ia 
defined as *on« wMcii one of the jjartlas to ths contract cannot 
alone render certain,** In s^at v. Groit, ^ 70 III. vl, .-"I, it is 
held thet Itenta for work and labor perfonaed, board, goo<?.3 3 old 
and delivered, and Korey, etc., a-'e not unliquidated daEar.f^e and 
jnay be set off in r»n action ex contractu. Jee, aloo, Kelley "&us _^ 
& CO. Y. aaffrey,7 g 111* App. J37P., 879; Ideal Coated Papfer Co. 
^« Cupplea Envelope Go. , 1*^9 111. App, 484, 4S'o, In the last 
mentioned cas« it ia said: "Statutes of set-off, bein;' regarded 
as reTaedial acts, tending to prevent circuity of action and tlius 
to settle controversietn Bp«edily, are vc be liberally construed, " 

rhe burden of proof was on the dator^&v.t to Qkitabliah 
the existence and validity of hi;3 ciaisj of sot*»ofr by a pre-i^onder- 



■' ' - *XfiU tol air ""^ ' ' ' 

't bX«xi 

,jj.i =' .. ^ee 

<«'< e>f 


anoa of the evlder^e. ( Eaat v» crow, supra. ) *ind In the 
absence of a statdisent of facta, stenographic report, or bill 
of exc«{>tlon», it rauat b© presumed irt this oaurt tlmt thoro waa 
eufrioient evidence to urarrant the finding and jud^riasrt. ( "'ilaon 
▼. iiopoii^ll , 65 111. SiaiJ: a hi.o ag o , etc» K ^. C;o» v, Benhas ^ 25 111, 
App. 246») Th© judRnent is affirmed. 



Harch Term, 1912, IJoS 
270 - 18510 

Plaintiff in Brror,/ 

▼». / 

^ imm ocsAK i-rjfrVBPAPKR '.'ovpahy, 

XJftfen'lant In Krjfor. 




) OF cook: COtJHTY. 

184I.A. 63 


The plft-inliff, Heler: Ivce, M-oi^ght an action for libel 
in the r.up«rior Ccu^t ti^-&irn;t the Tnt«r Ocean F^'eweptpcr Ccfflj-'any. 
TVf Jury found the dsfendtini not pruilty p.n<l lo rev^^rse t>ie ,iudg- 
T'.cf't of njl cap 1 ^'-t eiit'itred on t>!9 verdict t>« jilaititiff ri'"^ B«sci-teB 
t>ln TTit of errc^r, Cn". of 1>!?j artiel'SB a11.«prcd If be libelcua 
was tbe following, pisblifhRd in t^.s n^iwepax^er of the 'defendant 
February .'>4, 1908: 

■TBr;=:pnoNE hift, ir a boy. 

St» ■^.ouIb Kxch'Anpe Startled by •''onfeeBion of an 
Op-^rator "I'ilninrr ''-o none frci^. Chicago, 

Sp^ciRl Diepatcfe tc^ The Intflr Ocsam. 

Ft. Tou.Ir, f'o,, Feb. ;?3» Th«r«! vras conoternation arscnf? 
th« ovflraifrB v-)f th« Torf^st te;iei>hone exohai^f^? 'f&ie.p. Hel*5n Ilea 
confeeeed thut ehc was net ?* prlrl »it all, but a boy in aifRuise, 

^Ti-sn the dreadful truth beoarr!;© known to h'?r chuv-^.^ 
thorj'j '/ho h'id beer, erpecially ir.ti;??ate v?ith hsr b«f-&n tc refltict 
upon just how liumy cecreta of th^sirg sh* had cihared, 

Kalen Ilea iaas a f&vorite isith all of the opf?ratorg. 

'iAILS ?!K0!:> CHICAGO. 
It YiaE about fiv** ntonthe ago i.hat a slender, grv.ceful 
younp f"irl» neatly ati^ired in a bro'-.n B/Jirt, suilcr v;alEt, Icng 
tan ooEit and fjuffy htit, s^-pi'li-sd for e^iploysnent as &n operator, 
V The apr,llcant Raid s^he wae ll'^len Il<^8, nfxiid. 27:^ of 

rhicaj^o, fenci K'id. h^d e-xj.-erisnce in the wor>: in Chica4?o Exch^xng-eB. 
?ho pocEdBfsod a nl«ai- vcice, which is ona of the chief quaiilioa- 
^vtiont! of a telenhone opsrutor. 

l^liX.^ 7AXTB IN LOVK. 
A nhanp^ts rane over '^^elen'a r\or.d a fow w8*;>kB age, when 
■ . fc new orsratorj & tall, fitaie3y, dar-hintr brunette, ?7hoES ivase is 
"arflT.ret, was &oeip;r«d to the e:coh»n{3;«?. Helon iiri.retUj'^tely mani- 
f-ivtiid. a p«culiftj" irfatuatlon for "farif-ar«t *nd jeought her society 

in leiaur* nowenta to the excluttion of the other plrle. 

ITalen .iou^ht "ar>rarst in tha rent rom 5.\»rinr' an in- 
terral of rest & week fijsro, ccnfeoBed that he was a, and de- 
clared that h« loved h«r arK". could not live without her. ^'%TgfiT«X 
repulaed him and InF-iediatjly e^'Ufht ^Jitrr, Fv.rnt!, th*! c^i-^f op r- ra- 
ter, -vho ordered 'ielen'c Inner'.iate iiacharf^e," 

Another article nice all«gecj to he liheloue related 
to the jsa're euhject naat^er. 

The defendant pleaded the *7«naral iKtue and /^-ave notice 
of epeclal matter. The notice ir. in paragraphs oeparately stated 
and nu?nh<5red. Ho one of them, nor all of then taken together, 
awount to a rtat orient of factn rhlch If proved Y?ould he a justifi- 
cation of the article on the ground that the ^rattere puhli?hed 
wsre trua. The concludlnfj portion of the l&ct paragraph of the 
notice ie aii followB: 

"fhilc not contendinp- in thic ce.oe that the plaintiff 
ic In fact a r.s.l??, thn dofsnc'.rint will ettfinpt to .^UBtif;- the ar- 
ticle, and prove that the ouhEtance of the article Ie true, and 
that the p?. riintif f dl^l in fa.ct nak-? tho onfeurjlcns allflrod in 
aaid article and conciucted herself in the rr;>.trjnor indicated and 
cugfei-.ted in said f;,rticl.*. " 

A plfsa r.r nct^c* ^ottifyi-nr. th« ^'crde a^^ true nust 
aver the truth of the very charr?. 

Bovfie V. ■"rid«l», 2l6 Hi. ^^-'j,, 

Defend ar!t call«;?. as '\ vitrfjce '''..■^ll Af?.n Thc^isr, '?/ho t*»{s- 
tified tc- conv<5rsatirns '"ith plnintiff a*^(l ^'ith h^r !r?ic>th(?r in h«r 
pr^oeriCe oncurx'inf^ nftarly t>'v 'r^nd f^ half y^^are aftar the vub- 
liration nr.d onl;' a fe-fj rronths "b-sfore th^ trial, '"'vnr the objsc- 
;.. Ion cf "laintlff the *i*,M<5>iK 'rau p-smitt^jc! to tt^stify to moot 
diKgracefxil .H.ct3 -iTjd '^onduot on tha ptsxt of the ::l':.,ir;t.'.f l" occur- 
rini^ a fe»^ nontha "b^fcre t-;e t;, to the r.'Sse f>f p^"^' -'*»•«* 'Wid 
l»nprrper l-^j^nss.r'? at the n-ri« t lifts tuvJ tc &t;itsr!«rtto hy the plain- 
tiff's mother In hnr pr^JS-^ncr &hcut th« fi&T.s tiir.^ of ir.ipxopex 
conduct en the psrt of the plaintiff. In thij; «■« think the 
coi'.rt ftrred, Jilvid&ncs of f-vCts occurring vKO years uvid lonft«r 
aft«r the puhlicatlon do not ten-'l to chow ^-ith-r the truth of the 

iMo-^ia !:• 

Tjublicatinn, ^or 1? rr-c)-, ^T'denos a.1'-!liSRthl« in mitifration of 
dsCTCi^es. !?;vid9nc« of fr*n«ral "bad reputation of the plaintiff 
l6 n<lrrisEl"fcl9 under the i^eneral iseue in mitigation of daTjages, 
t>ut It l3 a peneral rvil-s that the nh':'T!i.cter of a. party cannot be 
impeached by pr'Of of sriecial unte, for no p-sraon le cupiooed at 
411 tiraee to be prepared rith th-; proof of ev^ry in-.Iividual not, 
t'jt is preaviwed at all times to b« prepared to cupport hi a p:«n- 
eral character. >?on5 of th« acta, conduct or lan(7ua<?« tfjotified 
to "by Lillian Thomas la j,;5nticn«d m the notice of jjpecial nat- 
tor. The fact that defendant's counsel on croar-« 
interrogated plaintiff ac to the 'laattsre t^^stifif;? to "by Lillian 
Thomas and she denl;^ci that thay occurred did not jn^iifcs the tse- 
tiraony of Lillian Thomaa ae t--. such icatters adrri legible. It ^a.a 
crosB-exarrslnation on ccllateral or irrelevuit matters and the de- 
fendant was hound by ihe annwsra and had no ri^jht to contradiot 

■Plaintiff t-sstiflftd that ehe /forlcud in a ?t. T.ouis 
tel'^v^hone exohaoj^e for five r.ionthc and ^an aekert by d^f*;n'iant* s 
counoel on ore c p- -17: ar; 5 nation, ""'aB it diirlng this five months that 
you were in T:t, Louis that your mother frst! in !;h3 p'initentiary?" 
The C';>urt sv.rt.ainftd an ohjtcticn tc the .-iueKtlcn, hut the vice 
wao in the question, rhioh v/ap. a Rtates'5".t of s. fact ae -filX as 
a qufistlcn. It in th«? pr-r^vinc-s of counc-*! to ask ra-jctione, 
not tc fetatt- fi-ctR. Thtt question ^•aR so frmrtod that, ths anewey 
"T/o siir" t^ay he hal'i not to rieny that plaintif r"' c wother v/ae in the 
panit«nT,iary, but only tc deny that rrhs v.-s.s. there nuririF the 
five monthr. tV,at plaintiff v.^ac in Ft, T.oul:^. ?hrt ;:ju«?!tion aeked 
cf plaintiff in relation to h.^.T ir.othar, "Khe hag been ?:arried 
ei^ht tinea, haan't ohc^" and other qufteticnR of ih« K-ari'; oh.Ej^ao- 
ter were inproper. Plaintiff c mct.her y/at: act a f/itnefeB and the 


number of timec ehe had toesn married and the kind of lanpuafee 

she uoed were not proper cubjecte of Inquiry. 

Inctructlon (< [-iven fcr ty.« defenrlent in ut. 

■ycu ai-e Jnetr\iCtfi<i ihR^ th« dsfenjant i& net reci'jired 
to justify ihs exact v.orda in the publicution con-pli^. nsd of. It 
ie & fiufflci^nt dafe?if.e In this case if the defonrtant hae proven 
loy a prepcnderance of tho evidence thar, the cubatance of the 
i??hol«r nrtirle ie tru^." 

Thn dsfenrlent Uri not jufttify the puVlirtttlen on the 
{ground th^t it i«'ce true. Under a pi a or notice cf juttifioa- 
tion the suhutRnce of the ehargf r;ontaln9d tr the publioation 
r^uet he pr'-'ved to be trve to oor!stit".t? a c?efence. 

The pr'Jnolpal oh''' In the puTilleatior ^/as t^nat the 
pl-iint iff vfiB fi. boy diaguised an a. rlr! , and there if in the 
record no ''VldencJ tendlnp; to pr'"re th*? truth of this ehiirfr?. 

Instruction 7 rrlTer. for the defendant in fis folio '.'s: 

•If yovi ftnd froe the ^vldenoe in thle ciee, by a pro- 
ponl«ranoe df the ■ivi i'^nc-^ , th-;', th« xyixry^oTt of the puhlicati-.-sn 
CGrip?.Hine(J of tba fia th^ plaintiff .<»etfs forth in th*'/ dtolaration, 
a charge that tho rltiiitiff ^as r^ascii'- ins in har behavior and 
was fruilty of acts indlcatin^t liiKiuo affection and passion ''or 
flons'sn, and if you further boli-avo frorc a proponderano-^ of the 
evidence thai Duoh churx!;e has been provod *;nn ia truR, and that 
th*) defondaj-^t r^e not f.;ullt./ of lictuai -nalinc in ths publication 
of tho articla, then you *iil find the dtsfenaant not rv/ilty, i-jven 
thoufrh it be trisa that the defendant is a woman and not a man." 

The purport o^ tha publication -ae a nyeuticn of la«- 
for the oo\irt , not of f^.ct for thi» jury. It -.^as in part a charge 
th«Lt plaintiff ssafi rot .^ /J-irl, but a inny in <,'.i&gi3iee , and not a 
ch^jrgc that tha i^'laint if f -^^ac riasculin*-'} in her h'^hsivior and 
fTuilty of iACt. 3 Indl'^atln.- an undue -iff 'Action for .♦■nmsn, as 
£;tated in th';' InBEruct Ion anrf pro^f of the b'shavior &nii ao^e 
stated, vould not rinount to proof o^ the truth '^f th-? ;'>uhll ca- 
tion, Thu first sftntenoa of defendant • s ini'traction ?'' ir aa 
follose: "Unleos you believe frori u prsponderance of the evi- 
dence that the 'irticle coTplain^d of fi-ae uitrue you -"^ust find 
the defendant not guilty." 

The plea of not ;"uilty de'U-s the act charr*id in the 

karf mr TAdiaon 

doclaraticn only, and ths truth or falsohood of the ahnrge can 
not 1)0 inquired Into under that Iseuq, 

Shsaha.1 v. Cell ins, 20 111. J 2?; 
Ranecn v. '.'cCurley, 14.^ id. 6iS , 

Other Instruct ions i-^ivon for the dafandant sro subject 
to crlticinra on the grcundB alr«iiady atat'id, but in viow of sfhat 
has "be«n eald we do not dii-^^-^ it n<Jo«8Biir.v to otat*? in fJetail 
^h3 r!3R!:'':-oto in vhtoh cuch intitruct inno fere in our er- 

For the errors indlpe,t*'d the ^uflfTrsent its revsrced and 
the can PC renanded. 

'ffT^! frrff -rp^^r rtni f^^-rlup 

bam b^ 

288 - 18528 


JOHK 7, J5EVIU3?, AdmlniBtratori 
of J0S2PHIKK 1fl8LTi?R, dacaaao/, 

TB, , 

CO^AHY, a corporation, / 



I.A. 64 


This wai 9H\ action ofiuinst the dnfcndant rallrcad 
company for negligently cuvu^ng this ttnath' of plaintiff e In- 
toBtate, in v.hloh tViore v^aB a verdict cf not guilty !6.nd. a Jud^- 
r.enl of nil ca|'iat , to reverse rhich pl&inliff prcEen t»s thia 
app->al, ?he defcnrj&nt conptuny opsraled a double traci: *ilfictric 
railroad which crccsed *,xint avenue, un -;jist and west street, at 
/rrnde. The rune norf-' and aouth sxnd =dt Morse nvfcnue, 
l-hs next evsnrc south of Lunt , la a r;tut:cr! rih-s -it.tfr.r-'i of ^>hlch 
exteTjds rorth tr rithln 125 fe^;t of !,vmt a-venne. There -trsre 
jyatee on each side of the track at th« crocuin.t, con-iict Ing cf a 
lotiK arm ?;hlGh clon?;d the atraat iind a .~hort ai-s 7.>-i.ich closed 
th?? sl<^^>^'s.llr 'rher. Oo-^n, 'i'hsas artm rvara hunff on iron pcsta - 
rhich stood in tYe Etrect near the outer of the sid-r^/alk. 
"Pre?!; tha short ar-" of ths rrtio -A-as rueponded lutr, ice wcrk, ^rhich 
CP.r3« 5!C iT^ar the f'mund that a. person cculu not pass unoer it 
TTh^n the ft'i-i^ ^nn icm "-'jv-an h.r ntoplntt. ,TU3t so ith of ths south 
lin« of Lunt avsriue hetr/ev?n thft traokB rvas v, tcwfjr, In vhic^ vaa 
a to'^-^r rrsan , .''h'^ hau chir-e o' th» !^r ■■■■ ■r. T: in^ %n'l raif-'sd and low- 
ered the rstee. Deceased aprroHCh^rt tr;? cr-~f?ninn ^ro'^ tha "/est 
on th^ ;;r>uth f^id-:) of Limt .xv'ruio aho'.ir, ■.lidnipht , ^'i'-.h her ^'ae 
a younr jn&n, ^floholaB ^reir. "^-lo t»^st5f1ffd t^ut tho rate vitis 
]^&rt c^ th*^ v-riv up; thu"? doceafied th,?, rxi^m^ f?»st fihE?id of hin and 
stooped an'l went under the gate; that h^i saw the train coming 
frorr? the? ecuth; chat it ' ar. t-jn feet fro?a deceased \^h-^n eha 






Btartod to omcc the tracks v Th^ motor and the to?ror man 
test if led that ths prttte was not raised ufter a southbound train 
had pKfteod and the motor nan testified that doceaeed ?.'• nt under 
th« gats en thfi atrsret side of the poet on >-hioh th« f-tixtft tnkB 
hunpi and ae ahtj cane on the track wau struck "by the car. Th«i 
oar did not stop at ths '*orse avenue p.lation, and there was evi- 
dence lendlnr to show that it ran acrosn Lunt avenue at a rate 
of apeed exceidinfr ten nil«r por hour, t^ie rjito limited "by 
the ordln».nne counted nn aro proved, tnd al&o that the cars 
usually etopred at the Vcree «.verupj tt&ition. 

The cent en" Ion of arrell--*nt. that, the? ci3i sn-'iant was 
not entitled to an instr'-ict .'.on tynir if" v-hs dacsacsd vfae i^uilty 
of neflif.ence vhich cantribv*ted to t>^e «nci.'.8Tit thay f^howld find 
for 'uhe t'-sfenda-^t , anu «.t ♦he ?-i:t». ti/no to a rpsciiil finiiini? 
whether ohe was in ths exsrcirc of prooar c&re and daiitirtn for 
her o*.'n rafety at the t.Vme of the acrlJont *vhicb roa;.ltft>i in her 
deafr , cannot "be c^elaini'd . TV.? &t3.tute nrovidat that m any 
cafse In ?-hic^^ f^e .lurv r^n -ere a pi-.^n^rR'l vird.lct t^i^y :nufit, on 
the requent of h partj, be rsquirad to find npecially, "'ioon any 
ffiat«?r1a.\ qur^eti'^n or gu^Bt?onn of f,\c.^.,*' 

Complaint ie inad« that the tri.-ii court HUrituinAd the 
Objection? of tVe ''.f»f»r.'iaT^t to t^o quyntic-ne ci-VKed of (^'Xr^nn, the 
motor Tan, an'l to two qu^^Bt i^ns anVgd of tha tor/er Tian by plain- 
tiff's conneel rr\ croe? e^fananat 1 on. T^"e ovHjgtione mH T'^lated 
to mattere touch in.ff the neglirence of the dofandant. The jury 
answered In the w^jpative the question subn'ittod to them, "''''ao 

f-^ni, li **« 

th«? deceaoed, Josephine v^'eitor, in the -sxerciBe of due and proper 
care and cuution for h«r ov.'o tafuty at t>}e tine of th« accident 
wV;ich caueed her death''" In view cf this t^jv^ciJil finding »e 
do not think thf^t the judfrrrert ohoultJ "bo reverBOd "becaueo the 
c^rirt suatalned tha defendant 's ©"bjectlono to sai:i! quyotion». 

It ic not contended that tVi© verdict io b-^ rianifestly 
e:,-7'?.ln'tt f^e '^"M^nco , ^^itVier on the t;ueetJon of tho nftgliironco 
of th*« defen'^ant or the contrihutcry n^piif-encc of the dscoased, 
that tb»? court fjrvQci In denyinf- plainiiff s irioticn for a new 

IThe ri*rsilnin»r contention of 8.priell«,r:t io, that the 
.■j\.*,dr.Tn<?nv uhculfi be reviracd fox errwi in inttructif-ns 
givon for the dcfendur.t, ^& do not <*f-r«:';e vith ths contention of 
appellee that the cuae is, on whR evliftnoe, ono in "hich ■aa can 
gay that the judfrr.enl oy.ovild not !»« for ^-hsat would other 
'aiRH he r'^'vtircihle error in i.he inatri-nr i'~ns; on the io'i^vnd that 
any other verdict than thut ■^•■hich vi&s r-iJiidercd n;U!i;t hf^ivt; hwen B«t 
it&io.e ae contrary to th-i evlaence. In inhtm^ot j on 14 th« jury 
werT- '.old th'it in order ^c fina u V'vi,rdi?;t I'a- the plaintiff they 
inu.?t h-^lifvve •^rorn ths evi )en''.e i nt-^rr yj-1 I ^a, "That th« di^csafj^d 
was in the aj^arci ?"-5 of due &nd proper car^ 'r;n'l -^ai ';.ion for h«r 
o',»'n ::*i.'*'ety ai" 'lefi/^<»d in Ib'isr's i'^strijct :: -ns , "it and jujtt h^jfore 
th^ tirfj of th-5 iiccld-i^ri'. conplu Ljied oi"". In no lni;tr>.ct ion givssa 
le t^^ore a d'^jf inition of '♦di.'e and prorer cai*'.? a-nd. cfettion" or of 
"ord;.n-iry oar^i'*. It is ^-nuhtful v-hnther i^ry i<ut<sKptcd dei"ij-..xtion 
of tho words u^;'id "ould h?-.vfi rf '.do cheir r'.'-'&iilng cloia-or. Tuch 
definiticnu- are lit" ?.e r.r.rfi than u ; t«4=.?^'^t-nt of the t,iir.:c idtu in 
different lan,tua;/«, and "--e do not i;h1n-< ths ju'-kfr-'int ehruld be 
rev-^ra^d h«cai: a<s of the ftijjur^i to dyfinTi' euc'- v.orde, I'eiiher 
do v/e think that the o'nii.nlon to Ptats in the inr.truotion that 
the failuj'e hy the doco^.Bed to ^'^xorcite luo ^xrA pi^op-^r oara I'or 

. rjaln 

hor own Hftfety which ^ould prevent a recovery by th(? plaintiff, 
tfftB limited to caeoe ■f'h'sro rsuoh failure oausod or contributed 
to the injury and de&th of the dcoe&BQd, and -."ithouv vhich the 
injuiy vvould not hav« occurred, wue r'^vereible orror. 

The record in our opinion ie frue free i-'^vareihle 
error, and the Judf,Ti&nt ia affirKCd. 

5l<^ - l$550 







OF COOK courry. 


i:I.A. ?0 


the plaintiff Hrtber wae In the serrice of the Isfendant 
corporation and wae operating; a lathe used to turn wTil finish 
iron pulleys. While so «ngagad his rlf^ht thumb viaa caught in 
the g«^ar callod speed gear and tr»Q-thirde of it takon off, la 
tort for negligence he had a rer-iict and judgraent for -"^IjOOO 
da.'^'apes and the defsmlant app^alsd. 

Ib the certrs of the lathe ^as the ptat iona^ry pHTt, 
©n each side of .vhlch was a. table that co-ji1o h^ ro^ed t'> the 
proper distance frnw the utationsT:/ part, ^ef^noin? on the di^3«- 
tsr of th«* ptills.7 tf^ he tvirnsd, T-hirh varisd frcn; t^iC^tj^-six to 
fr-urteen inehes. The pulley was hc?.a in rlace by stays on either 
Ride and "by shafts -hich ^inga^'ed thcougrh a hols in the hxih of 
the pulltjy. ihfj f.aVle cno9 s>!2t reriain'^d stationary, Kext to 
oach table ?,-an a csk-riape cofitaloinir a rh^ft, in v?hich -fas cut 
s spiral irroove end to which wac attached a frfirns carrvir.?? a 
Icnife -^hlGh scrao d the Tmllsy. ThQ ifnivae #9rs attached to 
the grooved shaftc and i%t tha shaft revolved the knives "^so-^ed 
Tcny elofrly acrofeti the face of the pulleys. T-r- place a knife 
in proper poi^.itinn ths op&r&tor vith one hand, h,v ?b ano c^f a 
crank at the outer end of the shaft, revolver? the r^hr^ft an? thsre- 
hy moved the knife. At. the inner end of th« rrooved shaft v^as & 

n"3 ;« ^• r . ." ■- 


^ji-' no 



vo« xd 


wheel with cogs or te-ath and at the and of the driving shaft wae 
a clutch with cogs or teeth. To couple th« t**o nhr*fts toft'ether 
the clutch vSih ynoved apainet the ^heel and when the te th in the 
clutch enraped with the cogt or tc'^th in the T*heel the twc 
Rhafts ♦/ere coupled tojpether and ae the shaft revolved '.he 
knlT9S Acre moved up and down on the face cf the pulley. In 
startinc; the lathe the operator *ith one hand, by jn-ianc cf the 
crank, revolved the shaft and *hen the knife wap In proper posi- 
tion he shoved the clutch into place ffith tha other httnd, so 
that, it engarrsd vrith the wheel and thereby the t'#o shafts 
were coupled togsther. 

Frccj the evidance the jury mi?rht properly find that 
Boaa« dayy 'afor^ che accident &oT?m of the teeth in the «heel 
at the end of the facoved thaft nare #:f;rn rind "brcksn, ro that 
when the clutch wac throv;n in it ??cul:i fl.y cut &nd the t«;c shafts 
thereby becoiae diaongJif'Od anU uncoupled. 

Plaintiff s.pck6j only tho polish l^v^nrt' '*»;*- , but hnd 
picked up a fevf *orde of «n.-liBh n-nd j-rerBan. He, thrnuph 
LevicVe, whc p.t:i:k& 1~.cth in^rlish --na polish, ccmpliiinnd to Aulis, 
the assistant fcrerk&n, under vyfcocs isir-iediate conirol a.nd dirsc- 
tion he 'worked, that the ffftttre; '?ers '^orn cut and the clutch 
«oul'! not stay in placs, an-' Auli 3 said h-.? ?^oul ^ fix St. Two 
days I:iter plaintiff epoke to Aulie ahout the defective condi- 
tion of the g:?ar coupling applianos, vi^inr a ?r>i>:fure of p-^ 
find -'ti|-lish, and Aulio a^ain ^ai^i, *I «^lli fix it* and told 
plaintiff to CO on -^orkinf/. On the day of tha acnldsnt nliMn- 
tiff arain ecmp3.?iinf.'d to Aulia of th?? defective coniition r^T 
the ooupllng app>liance, -^ain usinp; a mixture r-f snrlirh and 
frsri'^an, and whils ha and Aulis srere • orkinf at the lathe the 
clutch sprang out and Auli-:s paid that he '^ould fix it and that 
plaintiff should go on and vork. Auli'j then bro>.rht a pulley 


rr:-»rtJ llisal^z 

only fourt««n inches in dlepjeter and pl^s-intlff %djustftd the 
table anvl then, to aet the ^rrc^nved ahaft in r'otinn, took \old. 
of th« cranV at th« *5nd fef tha ehaft with one hand .-and th»? 
clutch TBlth the other and atteispt^d to shore the clutch Into 
place. Th'in, according to plaintiff's tsgtir.ony, "'bacausa the 
tQ::th wf^re brokon it aprunp out; so that r.y fingsr rnight not te 
cruehed I quickly drew h?icK my hnnd", and it was aauftht in the 
spoQil gsars and the injurioB oonplained of iheraby infXictsd. 
The speed j^aar "«ae only a few inches fron the clutch *"?him zhe 
tabls wan not for a fourt?:!cn inch pullev. 

The t'^Rt ir-.ony cf plaintiff aa to hie cosplainte to 
*ulie cf •hs defsctivs condition uf the coupling fepyliancee, his 
prcmiseo tc repair and his directions to oiaJntiff to continue 
to -worlc, is not contradicted. 

^3 find nc er-rr Irs the rulings of the court on ques- 
tions of 3Vl.l!5ncs nor in the Instruct ione i'iveri for pl's.inl.iff . 
Th« contention of app-3llunt th:.ft r'ls.intiff aeeunxec the riek, "he- 
amis9 h-s ^ac injured -'.ors than ''^^^ ^^^^s ^'^^^ ^^ ^''' c--^^®^ 
that defendant pro^iitsd t- rsrair the inthei the rspfiirs undis- 
putahly couli htive haen T5?ade within that l^ni?th cf lir^e", can 
not hs £\>r.t-inod. ^"hethisr plaintiff continued in -^^rru'lovnent 
long^er t>an a r-3ascrahlc tig's *.'an a quaiition of fact for the 


J?cott v» Pari in ^ni Orcndr-rf "■■>,, .-Mt> I^l.-feO, 

On a car^3ful exa?'in'..tion of tha avi-^jnc--? In tho record 
we cannot say th&t the verdict ^ac sr clearly againet tha evi- 
dsnce that the trial court erred in devrin^. defendant's -iotion 
for a now trial, 

Plndinjr no error in the racord, the jud'.'K'Srt is af- 

iiarcii Term, 1912, ITo.' 

^A>*Y ppTKR ^y vpA^-K / ) i I. A. 7 4 

VAJ<7AN, hlfi n?xt friend, / ) 

"Defendant in Krror,# ) 

/ ) iTUOP. TO ¥U^a-IPAT, Cv-^UKT 

y VS. . / ! 

^*^ '^ ) OF f^TaCACO. 

BUNTT! 7''P0T'^URS, ft oorporat icn, ) 

Plaintiff in Krrcr. ) 


i J 

The Judirment of ^^IC^'O att.&ckod by Ihii. v-rit of enor 
v/ae rendered by the ^'unlcipal (Tourl nf Chioaf^r '^Gce'^-brsr 25, 
1911. It Tsaa entered on the verdlot. of a Jury in an action for 
danafres fnr narscnal injuries culfsred by the plaintiff ^int-sr 
v/hilR in the er,p?,oy cf the defsn-ant, iunt« Brothers, a corr'ora- 
t.1on, throup'h, as was alTlg^rad in the ars^ended ctatfirrient of cla»jn 
f;i«d in the court below, tYe t'efendart' s nefrliptnce^ 

The n'rg'lijot epeclfinally indicated in the plaintiff's 
arrun«nt in t*^iR court, defend- n*? th« verdict Vind the judnfnant, 
le the failure of the defsndant vTcv*iTly to warn th5 pTalntiff 
of, and instruct hiTn hov; ti> avcld, o. darip;er conifected v-iih his 
eraploynsnt . 

-oun:v5"l foi- t^e olftlntiff a-1'^it th:it the d' ssay 
Vava b^'-?n obvioiio, hut ir£?ist thnt th<5 court, b-^cauts of the 
nlaintiff'B youfi, '-'in I'lC'' of int'2llipenc« una of r.ental capa- 
city and hie inexpert mce, ■■yaa rirVt In '•'.avlnr lo tha Jury the 


^- question vrhsther he undcretood and 5ipr-r(;;ciiit«d it, 

ncunfc-e* fv r t^e defenri&nt rnainLain on the oth'u- hand 

that the plaintiff asturncd ths riKl: r-f his employjr.ent and that 

the evidence vac &\,ch ■.hat at the clcse of ths plKintiff»D 

case the trial .Judre s^hould have peremptorily inetructed th« 

""■■^ i^vy to find for the defendant. 

ft«« Xi 

The rule of law in tliis Plate aff«ictinR the conten- 
tion ie not doubtful. It wae thut' exoreaeed by ue in 'irace A: 
Hydo ''0. V, Panborn, 124 111. Apu. 472: 

"If concedinr: to l>e truo all that the ovirience tends 
to prove in favor of the plaintiff it would be apixiront to all 
r«RBonal'l6 minds that nurh danpiora &q th« evidonco thus tonda 
to prov« wer-^ incidental to nnd. conrect»>d vlth hio emplcyrient , 
that they were not conceal 3d or latent, hut pjAt'snt and obvious, 
that they were not extraordinary and unucual, but usual und in- 
cid9^nt to t>« >-'ipJn'*8B enp-afftd in ac conducted by the dsfond- 
ant, and *»xirtf!d r'ontinuouaiy during the nlainijff'e ^r^ploytnent, 
and if t^^pr"? ip n*^ svldp-nce te-i'^inr to show that rl^intiff ever 
coTRplRln?*d of t^^JTT! or t>^nt ths defendant nromioed to rer-R-Vy 
ther^, or t>%t plaintiff had been ord rtid to incur therr< by EOi^ie 
particular and «sr>'»Gia1 order at th<9 tiwe of th?5 accident, but 
on th(9 contrary it ir proven that he rp then engagwd in the 
regular line of hie 'intieB and usu-al c?nployr:i*;nt , and t^at he 
wafl of n-iture ape and of ordinary ctrerifrth and int^llif-cnoe, 
thc^n the question of whether hn undoreiocd and arrrsciut'^d the 
da^arer (such underttandinf: and appreciation b*jinp recopnised by 
th« fuprens "ou^t as esBentlal el *?r;enta in ths aB^uinpticn of 
riek) i« Hncwtsred by a conniuelve prefiuciption, and th« aijKump- 
tion of rieV by the plaintiff b«c^"'iG8 a thinfr for th<9 court to 
aK.-iort Hfe a rnatt-jr of low, not a qut»6tion of fact to be l<?ft to 
the Jury, In other cases it is for the 3v.ry to say whether 
the Tis'K vag ascumed." 

Tor the &cci.jracy of this statement of the ruls we 
think "^^st-^rn rtone r.o . v , vuacial, 19o 111. 582, Illinois 
St«el r^o, V. Fyaica, ROO 111. 28n , and n, &. K. I. K. R. Co. v. 
Heery, 505 TH., 42m, and -reesed "'^rick no. v. it-^ininfter , ^1 111, 
Apr., :/24, - 14:. 11-j. ^34 J arc authority. In tha at bar 
«fQ have to decid*,' wh«tv-cr thn court below properly I'^ft tf the 
jury the qufjstion, "''nd the plaintiff, m the absence of vvarn- 
in/r and explanation, un-Jsrstand .'ind appr'Sciate thfj dansrer '-'hich 
reetJlfced in his injury'"' 

ThP in.iury for •■hlch the r>iaintiff recovered '.vas the 
lose of his rUp^ht hand ibu'nb, 

v^ile there io ->. conflict in the tv,stir.ony ae to gome 
d«?ta1lB, the .lury mif^ht, -se think, reaeonanl.y find tha' the 
follo^'in?! were the facts relatincr to ths accident. Th'i plain- 
tiff sae seventeen years of afie and had "'orKed for the dsfen-iant 

ft,-^iriit'\:~. ,i'T ■% f »«r 

oorncration for about fpur tiontho. Uv t.o the flay of the accident 
h« hftd T'crked or a "etarch reachins" uoed for the purpoco of 
BeTjaratinr car^ly from i-h« strwrcV In r'Vtch hot. candy had been 
dropped for the purpoc.e cf coolinp. Ths hot candy would he 
dropped into trays filled with Etarch and aft«r the oanrty had 
cooled the traye would be carried to thp starch machine and an 
operator -.•s'ould dtwp the contente of th« tray? into a hcr'^-i^r. 
The eane operator wuula then place the eTipty trays up^n "a 
cr^ain conveyor" runninr In "a conveyor box", whir> -.^ap a oart of 
thi? machine. This conveyor conaieted of f.vo chairs running over 
sprf^cket wheels at ths front and rear of th<i »nu.cMio, It car- 
ried the trays through tc the rear of the r5;,chine, durinr' which 
journey they ^vculd becorae filled aram sith, the starch vhic;h had 
been BOpii.r.:tted in the rn''Chin-3 from the candy. Another operator 
?'ould rorrove the trays fron: the conveyor, level off the ctarch 
in ftac> one vith a stick, and pils the trays thuR filled ';.'ith 
etarch uron e^ac'^ rvther to be aft«u*ward acain ured to drop 'che 
hot cand7 In. In tho r.=-.chine, cut ut a aiKtw-nee f j on^ the conveyor, 
box, 'SLt a ep^v-t frotr: K'^ic the oandy after Up Ba-aration from 
tht: starch pourfd vuv inio orr-pty traye placed thora to rccjive 
it. A third rperetor in x.h« wc... Inr of the- i-i;tGhinH .voul'l place 
these epipty trayc v.nder tho eoout and -a'han they ware fill ud with 
candy taVe thera '.??ay into another morn. 

The rl«-ntiif from the tir.e of hiJ^ firs-l 'imylo^v-^jient 
until t;h'3 riorninu of cho av-:oident engaged only in the r'ork .-hi-oh 
is above ascrlb«d %'.• iha tnird or'^rator, t,hci.T ia, taiinp: the 
iravK filled i?lth candy fport^ t,he spout into HiiOthor room. (This 
is denied, hc^yavar, by th3 defendant.) TVie two olh'jrr men v?ork"lng 
en LhB r;aoriirie *-"jre reiv-oot iveiy tv.onty-f ivs and t'-ii-ty years 
of af-e . Thsy fed thtj m.ichina, removed the trays filled 
with r.tarch and clenned ths machine. This cl'anin.r vas rendered 

' .". ' ' f;.'r^ifjt not noiSu-rotixon 

neceBROry ones a day at Isart, ac far as th« c<^nvsyor \>ox ?fa8 
concerned, "by th« fact that tha chains an<3 p-Qaring whaele ever 
•?rvic>. they ran 'b-canriis clor/ped un rith starch fftl!in,«^ over the 
cides 0*" the trayc, 7'> Ich Aers car:- led alonr tho conveyor tVjrough 
the machine, and filMnr tha "box. A brxi»h ''ati uR«d to renove 
the starch thus filiinr the box ri.nd clopiririf the chains and 
*heel6; hut the cleaninjr was alvrayp dr^ne wh'':n th« reaching waa 
etopped either for the r.urpcra or "becaune th'j d&v ' e. "orl^ xr&e 

On the r.orning' of th? aori'.tent th^ machine we h.«,v'j 
d-^Bcrihad ;?as cut of crdsr. There wsrs psv^ral •machlnee, how- 
ever, in th<? trto roovjiB Ufod \)y the defenlants, doinp tha sane 
work, and ths foreman of the dsfen.i-int ordered thn three opera- 
tors v^ho vrcrlired on it, innludinp the plaintiff, to go to fcork 
on on« of these other nac^inea T^hlch ''^aE in ths cthft:c cf the 
two rooTTic. Acr'ordlnfT tn the Rtat":r.ent (\icrne out hy the evi- 
dence) of th'5 t^lainttff in '--rror - 

"Thiff m^xchine d.i;5 th« 8?ime> ^/ork and ^'&.ti operated in 
the sa'Tft r,:inner as the other. The parts, ho A-evcr, -ivero smns^'hat 
4if^sr9nt3y ar^'anped. ir w x x The oonveyor instsivd cf run- 
ninjsr thrcur^ thp sid« of th" mac^lno ran throuph the entilre 
near the ■bo*tojn. Instead of having t?fo chains, th& conveyor had 
onf? '^nly, ^/Vich carried cros-.s piecec on A'hich the tra/B rested. 
It wae about fi-ve fett froT the front tc the rear sprocket ^hesl 
and it took half a nin te for tha conve'-or to rua that distance. 
On the first ri^ac^ins the hf.^lt Dhiftsr by -fthich the rnachtna .vas 
started and. atop^ed v;ap over tha cantrs of the front of the ma- 
chinc. Cn the second T^ifichine the hc;lt sriftar ^^ae at tho nidc." 

The pluintiff *-ith thg other t^o tnen hcfran to op'irate 

the machine {/.'hinh was alr<5ady runnincr) at half puut. eevan in 

thfi raorninft* At thiia nachins, h0;':(5(ver, h<5 rag ^nf^afud In durrjp- 

ing the traye flll'jd --ith etarch an i candy into the hopoer txnd 

placinp: the empty trajc on t^-'f chain ocnvo.yor - the ^.vnrk before 

deecribad ae that of ths firet operator on the nacv Ine he h^id been 

attending. The plaintiff ??ac told by the forenan to do this 


work and that h« iruBt cT?^an the m;..chinft f^h'sn it bwca- e full of 
starch, and that fh*re '-as u 'hrunh on tr,p of the mac^jlrip to ha 
us<3ci for thttt purpoee. (TMt convereation Ic deniad l?y the fore- 
ri'.un, but It aeo'-;8 to uc from a oonsidorat icn cf tho r*ccrd that 
the jury ni^ht r<^afionahl,y hixv^i found the plaintif r« 6 vercion of 
the dirtio' Icna received by him t'^ r'.' correct.) 

Aljcut li'c houru after hsginTurifr hic work on this second 
r.aehln*! the plaintiff was clean Ttr the {.roarirr en the ccnvtiyor 
"boy. ifif^ this hrush, th-? machine m?ar;ft'hil« running. '^^iilQ the 
r-laintiff "Kfia thun engaged the thunh ff hlr, rifVt hand wae 
caught h'*tv»«en ths chain anit aproccet ajid cruBhed so that israputa- 
tion vae r-ect^sRary. 

Afi sfQ havs said, th-^r*^ ifi no xntititent contention 
thai th« danger of in/urj in a.t '., eiripting to clrvan tha runninp: 
4:ear anu ccr.vsycr hox v;hii*. th« m.-ichine -van rui;^!^?^ vvau tiot 
ohvloun, hut th«r*? iv a dlopute and a conflict in the «vici€>nce 
as to whfet opportuniti»e cf olpervat Ion &n^ ch&t oxpsritncs, 
conrierrlnp: the runr'inc* a.rd the rl'^s.iiing of th« siRilsir convfjjfor 
on thii» first machine the plaintiff hud. 

The pl?J-intiff t»ntif^»d '\ he never ferfMrr-ied any 
duty, in corin«cticn v-it>- the first w&cy-]n«, but that of c&riylng 
trayr; fil'.ed '//itV fr<'-rt th':.- n^ichlr.* into anc';hcjr room. 
Fev«tral v;itn«as8s for thr ■lefs', -'.■■! ant g.ail th-.ty haxl esen him .*ark- 
in^ at eac''^ of th"'; thres ntationf* on th'^: nac'-iin*. The plaintiff 
t'j8t!-^led he knaw littl'=j about th<3 '-•iRfrod of .'*!'■ an inf? iho "irat 
r!P,chjn??, elthoiif'r he kne^' it v-aE clt'^arvad onice a. ■.'.•ss'-^k, a.-: he 
th o\;. ■'■'*' t , 'A-'hsther ■':-'h.':in running nr not h'.; ilid not se^.-n tc know, 
Thnr^i wass t-i^Btimon;/ on th-? part of the defyn-'ant ten-^Mnr to t;how 
thaf ho Muot 'have known and ths.' h?^ actually dirl kno*' ahcut thea® 
rntl^rc Mnd that he had tak^m p-rt In the cl?-;uninp of the con- 
vsyor "box and gsarin-t^ en the first in.icYin<St ih«? forenan ta?5,ti- 


, rfairxtf 


fi»d that h''? vrau the nan -vho put th'^ plaintiff to work on the 
firot machine; that he ehowtd hiyn "juet once" the firot <iay 
of plaintiff e work how to put candy into th« first macV.lno, 
hor; to take it out at the other end anci hov to tiiki tJ o trtxys 
away and pile «h'2r.'i up; t^A. thui en tho rjiorninr that he sut hira 
to v.crk on the stctind r..-^chine he naid noihinf; tlse to the thrQ<s 
men or .ithcr cl" then hut Tou thrs« felloes v.nrk ihere," 

Th3 defer ;u.nt pcintR cut thu.t t> s pluintlf f ' & ^videnco 
is in r,or.e re greets ap' ^r-jntl^- contradirlcry f,nd, ae h<s ai'fv.ftiB, 
dlKinpsnv.oue, co '.'^••.t litllt crod^nce r/i.r. h^: riv;/! it. 

Tha plaintiff vao undo',:"b^.edT7 of a low order cf lnt«l- 
lip-enr;© and c uld teetify cnly throuph a?-, interpreter, i^nd hie 
evjdcnrc 'rac *'• 'h.'-it cxtfint 'jnrT&tl r;f actory ; "but tho Jury v-,'cre 
th^- proper iu-lp«s of it? crridlh-!lity,an of *:hat cf the othftr 
wLtnecaea . 

It it: undisputed that thje p'la:^rtifr t,t the t intc hs 
••?as ci-aploysd v?aE a frs^^^ly arrived irr.igrant fr^r a cr^-ll village 
in Au:;trlar' 'Ivnr-iry, where hr' h'^d live'l on a fiirtr. and navsr 
OD'rn T'JLC'- in^ry . TT^ had ha^n '■5P'T.loy,)i:1 in heydiri!:; cattla ainoa 
he -ac-. ten y- ar« cf ape, had n«V!»r fi^,'-n tc j^chrifO. , und *'aa un- 
able tc r'^ad or vrlto. 

There yua-*? hecri two triy-lfj of thtr ciE«,in e»ach of 
which th« .jury re turned as. v^yr.lirt f-^r tlO'^'-. 

The ,1ury in ths rreecnt trial 9.'ace , as ,v3 think, 

nroporly Iniitruc^sd aa to th-i >.iuast:i':nn of contrih..l.Qry nopli- 

P"snor; n,nd fiErumpi", ion of rir>k. Th'iy r^-sre f\*:-t'n<3t inKtru«t';d that • 

"in the case cf a, F>in<^r or psrson nf lin-^ature fxci- th^^ la-^ niikes 
It the duty of the en.ployei' to instruct the eervart ae to the 
danifrerB of th« employ. snt, if any, •?!'hich ths -f^sploy^r knew, or 
hy the ex*:vrAp.* of ordiner-,"- '*&re wlrht hav« kno/^rn, and to nho?/ 
'^in th« .^ay to avoid nuoh danger, and that the burdsn is on the 
plaintiff to prove Kuch dut-' on the p^^rt of th;> defendant. If, 

honevftT^ you "bclleTO frori tho evidence that th** pl&intif^'e ex- 
po; ience on the firet machine was such as to cauee him to under- 
utsir.d the R;«thod of operation of ths Rfjcond niachine, and the 
danpera conn-ioted therewith, then the cl»?fon:lant ^txB not required 
to warn him of euch :\anft.'>.T, 

The law alsr. requiree a fiervant to exercise ordinary 
care and attention to learr, the danfars vrhich am liahl:! to 
heoel hin in hio work. x x Jt x If the plaintiff In thie 
case by the exerctfte of t-uch care on his ;>;\rt, juBt before 
and at th^ 1 imo in uiieotion, rouH A havs av ided the injury in 
queution, thor he cannot recover. The law, hc»wever, ^';oes not 
require a person of iTPnafiire ap-e t»^ exercise the rR»^e derree of 
caro and cai:tion as a person of w»tiire asre. He \s, ho/ever, 
rf^'julred to Qxercifje ar"-? Ifs held to tha^' de^rep of crts r^.nd 
caution that & person of hif: sr*?, intellifence, oxv.erlence, ca- 
pacity fund HbilJtv to c^nnrehend darker and cara for hiir^cslf 
nlt^ht re&etna\)ly exercise inder likij circur.KtancRS. " 

Wv think these instruct iuna, m connection vfith 7-'hat 
was otherwise said to the ,iury en T;he siih'.j c c t e cf nontrihv.tory 
no(?lijD;enc9 uiid aEft.-.r:-.plion of risk, fairly preaer.t^d the yueution 
th».t the jury h?id to cclve, ano we dc uot think the co\:rT, erred 
in refiiiiins to inKtrviot the .jury t' find f r ths defer ^art. 

Vor, ulthcu^-!:; the cunt en th'-; ffccte >,a2 net frei- from 
difficulty, wae the vtrclict cf thit- eecond jury, r<»psatinp that 
ci a!;otht.r, in our opinion so 'uir;&,insi the cleai- .vsir-^-.t cf the 
evidence, 8.&iA^raxnf, the lu*/ tc be rightly apurehenled hy then, 
thij.i we f^houlJ be juulifiad in aiut cLmg it on '.hat ground. 

We ao not think ihut the ar.'-or co^npiainod of in the 
introduction of im,':a.v»;ribil 4.'Vidt;nce - if it i.'&T^j ■tn «rrcr - vae 
har'-^'ful cr injurious to th« defan-ian t. As counrvsl points out, 
th3 fivldenca -chj'jcted to shov^id V'a^ th;j hay, orphan thourh ho 
WRE, had friondo rather ;,han vud daotituts o.' therr?. The .tamap'sa 
were certainly not unwarrantably etvelled by it, for they are not 
and ';ould not be, in the court in -.^'hich t>;e action .a::, brourhi, 
excoasiTe for the injury zufi'urad. 

The .ludrrcent cf the Vunlcipal "curt is affir'^ed. 

"^rf'llt f 


a A 


llarch Term, 1912, Ho/ 
245 - 18284 

I t. 

I.A. 75 

PLOTOCSr FliJtDPTATK, i ) ^-- 

Plaintlff in Srror, ) 


TB, •' ) 

/ ) OF COOK f?OU>ITY. 

C7UCA00 CITY RMT/iifAY CO».fPAS*y, ) 

Defendant in Jtlrror. ) 

\ / 

\ / 


\ / 
This writ of error ««• iued out to reverse a Jud<rjnont 

of nil cay'lat and for coete apainet the pluinti'f in 'Srror here 
and plaintiff below, Blondon Pialdistack, in a auit ^rour'ht by 
him apainat thfi "hir.&p^o rity Railway romr>any, the defendant in 
error h^re an'' defendant below. 

The suit itikB baaed on the allured ne^ll<!;enoe of the 
defendant company. The county of th^j declfiration on which the 
case ™ent to trial thus deecrihe the allcirrid ncpli-ence f-nd ite 
r«f8i?lt8. Tha first count alienee f^at thej r:ail>-ay T'^r^-pany being 
in posnercinn and ocntrol of and op.*ratin,c a railvway Bystani, 
Btrnet cars find etr'^'^t car Lrncks nlonr rotate ctreot in "hic&go 
at the InterBSctinn of ^5t*n otrssl; tho.' it -'fas ths cuistom of the 
defendant to etop its cars 'tt or noar '"o'th p.treat; that the de- 
fendant had strov?n &nd pilad or and alon.*? ^tufi ct.roet ^t this 
place, in clotjft pro>;i;nity to i-aid street car track;:, l.'-rf!;G juen- 
tiiies of dirt, cinaere ancl other rtiattirials and hrj.d thtsrsby 
rriised the lavel of t,ho rof^iihed ahove thr; level of the ntreet 
car tracks and h«d conrtrur.ted Anc l(-ft in th« ati'^et a clanting 
place fron the level of eai'-i Ftreet f' ra.1n«d Jownward to the 
Btre'^t car tracks; th'tt the rjefendanl than nr.glJrrentiy plowed, 
rhoved and threw larj5;e quantities of fir;Oi>/ alonr nald street and 
UT'on e«i4 slant inr pl'ice, v/hic*- tVierehy bccar^e elipAv»ry and cov- 
nvid with Bno?i and ice and (''.an^orouE to peraone ali/rrhtini;' from 


, 90*-J[t! 

bmmk* i 


fsald street cars; tb^-t thn plaintiff, bolnc: in th« enplojnent 
of the '^cfaniant, -vaB ririlnp on on-* of its etreet cars along 
f^tat-^ street, in a norkh«rly direction from hiB place of -jrnploy- 
ment to.varda his 'lone ae a passengor; that when aaid streot oar 
reached the aai-l place It ca.iaed tha car to lesGon its speed, and 
while it was movinpr slowly and th»s plaintiff, in the exerciee of 
ordinary care for hi a own safety, ^^as attemptinf to and -vaa in 
the act of alight inp frcn the caid car, he r!teT>red on said 
el«mtinfr portion of ottid etreot an<l by reaEon of the sllpp?jry 
and danting ccntiition of ths nanp olippud und fell and v.-as 
thereby thrown upon the pround tind under said car, md that the 
wheels of aaid car ran over him, hy roaer.n of all ■tvhic>-i ha v^as 
injured and h'^oawe permanently crippled. 

Ths other fifte-m rountB do not nat^rially diffor in 
th^ir all«frati"nR from this one. 

Some *jtention a public croEST?al\c on tho rort': cida of 
45' *" street as intsrsectlnr fltatc str-^^Jt. V.cTue tha allfiga- 
tion f^oncornlnp dirt and cindere .And ot>er nat-?rialc nnd allege 
the nejrlii^ent piling of ioo ii.r)ci enoff hnrdfininr Int'- jcs nt said 
intersection and alonp said Ktroit and«:v?.'alk. f^owa omit the 
allefration or recital that the plaintiff -'/as In the -.'"ipioy of 
defen'.lant and allsge risrely t^ai h« /'hj^ a pasr:er:'£y<ir . ''tv-ers 
omit the alle^:cJ.ion that h'^ 'hr a pH&ecngiJr and nlh^in only that he 
'.vac an ej;iploye an-l that the p'jraons rcsponrihle for the n-i^crli- 
gonce vera not hie ftllow cervantr . T>y pcr^nut at 1 ens ^xnd conihina- 
tione of those varying allopatiutu; ths fiftr;en ccx-'nte ar» 

7h© cans© wuc BUhmitt-vi to a jur/, "' ich found a verdict 
for the defendant, on .vhirh the jbdfJTi'ant attacked by thit rit 
of error ^afs, after a r.otion for a v/tTti tria) ur. I a rolion in 
arrcEt had been nenied, en-^red by the court. 

;»?*T/r'^ *;-?r*T> •'t.nn 

.mI.3 &m 

A "bill of exceptlcnB Is Incorr or&ted in the rocord 
vfhlrh, -shile net puxpcrtlnr to rive all lh« evidence, containa 
all the tsBtinony plven on direct exaniinat Ion by thu vurioue 
vitr»8res siddup'id on each siie. Th^ croea-exar-lnut ion In each 
C"fl9 la omitted. 

>To contention is rnade that vhe verdict .^aa co'-strary to 
the weic^t of the evidonc?, but the case of th« plaintiff in 
error in thia 'j'^url Ik ol ico i entirely on all'jp'od arror In 
t^ivinp' to the Jvry cartain instructions complained of, Theee 
inotructione ar« those miribered 7, ^i 9, I'"', 11, 1', 13, 
1=>, 1? and 19. They axo diooxiRsed at lon^th by ocur.psl for 
hoth pfirtloa in their reorectivs brisfs herein, hut it -^i-suld 
be a usoleap. urtdortaking fcr U5 in this opinion tc atte^'pt to 
follow the entire couroe of the urf^umcntG and aiecuee or dis- 
tinpiilEh th« Tfi&ny cHt^t cited in tsupijort cf the respective con- 
tentions. Tha ]>rlnrirHl obje'-tione urred t^nd our opinion thcjxeon 
^'ill be hriefly notod. To do 'hie, hovevsr, £•) up, t'; r-h.'^n this 
sta*-ft?nert clenr, it ii? nucefmixTy to iRcit<< ::.omv) o*' t.hQ inetruc- 
tioHB ob.l'^rT.ed to in fi.<1.1 ;<,n<^ to .^rive ah s t r jj,c t s of ths others. 

T-nptr^jction 7 is in full: 

■The .It-ry 'rre inwtrurted that, if thisy find from the 
evidence Iha* th^s plaintiff at 'empt«d to alifht frora ths car in 
qu!"Bticn •Jfhila it "s^as in motion and thai, hii; conduct in doint^ so 
vaE a -^^ant o* orciinsry care for hie tsaf'Jt.y .vhich prnyirriHtely 
contributed to the injury, then ho cannot racover in this cise.* 

Tnjstr'jction 8 is in full: 

"If it aTifaare *'rom ths ovidsnca '. h-'it ih^ plaintiff 
attenptfsd to alipht frojr* the car in qu'^stlon vhile it •#?'ab in 
tnoti<-n, and that his fall and injury .v.srft due t-? *>'jt fact, and 
that much conduct on hir part was a ;vant of ordinnry car«? foi- 
ble personal nafoty, ther. the jury ar^ Instructed that ha can 
not recover in this case and their verdict Khould h^ no*; jruiity," 

Instruction 9 in full in; 

■Thfj jury are Inritrv.cted tha* if It appearr, from the 
evidence that the ceu- in '"hich th«» plaintiff I'^p. ridinr on the 
occaaion in question >aE p.Xci'ir.% tc etrp an' --iC pr';ce=sd rsgu- 
larly to etop, and if thej -^urther belisve from the evidence 
that the pl>iintiff did not v-eit f^r the car tc "OT.t t'^ a stop, 
but attempted to alight fro>r. it ?.hil-3 it v&b in action, and that 

Buoh condvict on hit? p&rt wrb nQ^llfQiico and a want of ordinary 
care for his o^'n tafety v.hlch proxiu-.ately contri"buted to the 
injury in question, then the plaintiff cannot recover in this 
ca.8« find your varclict ehould he not cvilty," 

Instruction 10 Ir the reneral propoeitlon that the Jury are not 

required to bell-^ve any a-a*€7Tj«nt to bs a fact «inply bacauce a 

witneBs has 6*orn it to bo, ernd concliidea - 

"if after such conuideration of all th« evidence in the light of 
your o«n comrion oboesvation and exporlBnce as ^nen in the affaire 
of life, you ure unahls to eay that tha clainti;f has proved by 
a. propunderuiice of the evidence that the injury occurred by 
rsaaon of n^igli^'rence on ih^ part of the defendant '^hica^ro Tity 
Railway Company, and that P, A. PieldetfAolc *"as cxerciesinp: ordi- 
nary care for hia own safety at or bafore the time of the acci- 
dent, ao explained in other ini^tructiontj, thun the jury should 
fina the eaid defendant Ohica£:o City Failv^ay '!!cr.pany not guilty," 

Inalruction 11 in full Ib: 

■OrdinJiry cht^ and rrsdence ih the exerr'iae of that 
cai*9 wv.ioh ever:,'' person of cotr^mon prxidenre beBto*'8 upon hie or 
her affaire and corctrna and the pru;?ence and virilance vnich 
reason und latr require a person to exercise for hie or her own 
aafsty must be proocr t ir^nate to the de,nr«*r and e>eroi8ed with 
refererce to the eituation and pccjticn such p*'rBon is e^bout to 
take or in ^t^lrh snr*^ person finda VJTnnelf or hftTself.* 

Instruct inn 1? If. in fvll: 

"The court instructs the .jury that -s-hilft they arr; the 
judp-ea of thfi cred.ibillty of thp. v.'itnenEer, tY^y hf-ve no ri/rht to 
dii«repard the tostitnony of an uninpeached witnee&, if any, sworn 
or behalf of the defen^'ant , cin^rly bocavice such ^Itneee was or ia 
an employe of the defendant and it ia the dutif of the jury to 
receive the tostiroon/ of such ^itr.eRo in the llrht of all the 
evi dance the eaDe ae they vould recsivo the tsstirscny of any 
other witnees, an;^ to neter^iine t*^e credlb? ■ it/ of such ".; ploya 
by the Qiuna principles and teste by "^^hich they deteiT^ine the 
credibility cf any other J'^itneefc." 

Injjtruction If- bog-ine - 

■It ie not every accident that rakss a rail.vay c?)«!pany 
li--ible for darr.'urtic tc the psrynn injured br itE cars" - 

unU then procecaa to ofe,y that if tc fi-.r && fhe o.8fanr3.ant s-as con- 
cerned the accident war, i;navoids.bls , the jury shoul-:! fine it -^ot 

iHEtruction li, it: 

"The court int.tructs thut i- i-as the duty of th«~: plain- 
tiff to hav'j us'jd hii3 faculLi.js V'ith ordin.iry and rsaeonuuie 
dilirence and care on the occasion in question to avoid danger 
an"! injury tc 'linrj^lf, and if you fin J from the evidence that he 
fail ad fee do ao , antJ that euch failure v&a ne-ligence which con- 
tributed tc t.h-i* injury, tViSn tht ulalntiff cewnnot recover from 
tho defendant in this caae." 


Instruction Ic iu eiiailco* to iniitruction l-j in the atatiinont 
that if th'i annidant hapr-sned throufi;^* othii* cauaea than the neg- 
ligence of iho defendant, there no 1 i m.!:! 1 1 i ty on its part. 
It bctginc - 

^It it. not 6V6iy accident thJit ruakee a railroad cosnpany 
liable- for dana^oc to a peraon injured gattin/r on or off one of 

its C&XB." 

Int^truction 1^ atatcti the rule that in order to recover tVie bur- 
den ic on the plaintiff both to prove the napii»:;«nc« cl the de- 
fendant and alEG that he himeelf was in the exerciee of ordinary 
care for hit own cafetj''. 

Affainct instri/cti'^nr; 7, 8, 9, l^ ^'nti iB one g^er^ral 
objection Ir n^^de hy the plaintiff in error. It i:; that they 
are iviole&dinp in f-if nsise haoauRe thoy were draf^'n on the theory 
that tha negiiroMCC charr;«d is tho n«f: '. icenca of th^i defondant 
in ths op'jration of ite car, o/id thor«fore thsy tendcJd to create 
a ftilse ir?eus in tha nlnlc of f.'n^ ,?«ry, 

''e do not 83=^ why thay were aot proper inrjtructionr; on 
th9 Bubj-^ct 'if '.hjc rare on t^j. purt of tnt-' plr»intifj'. He alleged 
hir. ovvn due oare, the allagAtjon -ac nefctarial una h-'! -.ue, in or- 
dJr to rBC'ivor, oblip«=^ f VTc-ve it, tfrY^e thk'ir it was thn futlt of 
the company in rendRrinn tha otro'^t tjan/^eroua or itts fault in 
operatlnr *^'^-^ car that caused tV;e accident. 

Inatr-ucticn 13 iB rnoro open to the obj^icticn porhaps 
then the others, because it sfv;ai<n of "i* p^jcscr) injvrad by Ite 
care", "''"ut we do not think it r^ivf^rai'^ ly erronecxib or thitt it 
C'^tild have 'Hi sled the jury. The plaintir'f T>a8 "injured by the 
car", ult'^'our^ the norli'^once oharn-Hd was not in ita operation. 

Instruction 9 is r:iud« tho oubject c^ further p^^'-'tiru- 
lar anlnfidverBion for pflt'^ra"! reae-ona, but wn do rot think i.ho 
proun<is are well ar^Bif^ned. ^'« think ths position of the dafena- 

tn tlr-r* 


ant 'a countt'Jl in onr-^^jrit, th?>.t "The Iretructi cr. laft it '.o the 
Jurj' to cletcr-Tiae fTom all the STldenca ^yh-^thnr the plaintiff was 
injured by r -?ap!-^n of the ocndi^lone) that exifted ir the street, 
or •«TV><»tv-pr t.V'oy '-flr'* the result of hit? ov/n oondnct In alighting 
from thfi oar P'^llo it v.-ac in no": Ion '--tnd without waltinp- until it 
'-iD utoppad, an it vhs, s-t tho T'it'v.lur EtOFj'ioiP place ^t that 
internent Jin, " Indeed, aft-sr all iv. raid, that wan the 00I9 
qii«6ticn the^l the jx'ry rore hcf^ actvally ;j.ncl. th-soret IcaMy ct^ll- 
ed on to decide, and lnctri;ctic>nK cannot he properly called 
misleading that praeeiited that qu&eti< n nnd tho Iv* hearing on 
it correctly. 

InKtructiono 1' and U are on Ihs tt-uts to "be y,pi.iied 
hy the jury to the v?olg>^t of test iinony, Th« particular olvisction 
as to 10 IP chav che niar'Q of ?,. A. 7if!l:Sataick, ths plaantiff, 
y-aa introduced into it. Th-ro ir no -forcy in tha chjectlon, .s-hicH 
in haaed on the ■^xwecKicns of th<? F-ipr^r*: ('c-urt th^it a .itneBS 
should not be Binrlaa out by name In an in:tri;ctlcn f^-r t'-s pur- 
pose of discredit inf hi:, tiiatimony. The plaint! rf'E nsr,i£ ie not 
mentioned as a yjinese in this in&tri- ction, but cimply as tha 

In in^'•tr\!Ct ten 1? t^e ur.e of the V'-rrd "rec^iv^" Ie 
objected to, e-n^ it ij-> r.aid that in the oipreKSion "it i. ..he 
duty of the Jury to ri^caivs the t'^ttilr^ony of nuoh .^itnepa", it 
neano, acctrdinp to etanda,rvi usape, "adroit ar? true." >V> nf;.r Bcn, 
we think, faniliar with th-g English lanfTviaqe, vruld so und'ir- 
stanti it in thip. oonrvction. The n'-anlnfr; a*:lrlhutad t'- the v^ord 
"receive" by cciinsel ie a tiecondary one, and the -.yord r.'ould 
only he t-c intarpreted vrhen tho contest e^o>ved it to bft uted out 
of itB ordin^iry and prirr'ar.- tence, 

A oeraevhat similar ohjection, although ^e think het^'^r 



founded, is T.xdJ to tha '.Mrd "vlxii^ncs" in Inetrnotion 11. We 
do not comrrifind t:-i« uks of the vord, but aa d-j nO'> conuidar it 
r'jvsrni'bls srrcr or that, il n''ald b-i rOfitBonably aupiJoaad to hav« 
jr.lal'jci tha jxjry in thic casrt. 

If, .jis oounsel aayr^., "vlfrilancfi* i!3 s^-^ricti'nae iofinad 
HB "ai'jrt una intant rsdntal watchfulnaeo in guardine against 
danger", it is also definatl more oftsn ^n-' noro oocEnonly ni:n:ply 
fts "cars" or "p:' iasnc!**. 

It ia alnn said that the plaintiff a dut/ to ex«iroifie 
caro 'faa not by tha Tlth inetruotion oonfin?»d to the time and 
place of the acoidant, '^'q do not find it opan to any objection 
on thin fcround. The instruction do^as net direct a Terdict, but 
stat''ia an abstraot propcaition of law defining "or'tinary csirc" and 

referring the 'ief inxtion, prcpsrly wf» think, "^r, the situation 

and ncaition* (x person "it about to taks*. in which he "finiB 



This lAsl object -on not«d to inati'u.'';tion 11 it .-.iIro 
TTsftdfe to instructicns l:- fend 1$ . Inntruotion 15 confinse tha 
d«3scr Irtion of th** duty of the plaint i'f to »tho occasi'-n in 
qt>*etion'', ^-nd. Irratructicrj 19 r^ivil ? not by an;,' porn, ibility have 
been undnr stood h7 the .^wry to allude tv B.riy other tir-i":. 

We think th^t the i'-mj-sj; '"ert- fairly to the 
,ii:r/ find 8fi^ no Jv>f:tif ioatlon f-'ir di.^turbing the verdict, -^hich 
Ie accordingly afflnr«d. 



for f.rf sT«o 
'•"r r.tdS ro 



Ilfercb liermj 1912, Ho.' 
269 - 18509 

K, ¥, INOHAM doing IjuBlnesB / ) fOlTA f^W 

as N. ¥. INOilAM 4 CO., ) 1 O 4 1 •/!• * • 

Defendttut in "irtcr , ) 

TC. ) 

) OF CilinAGO. 

MKprnAi^F LiTHOni-APHiNfi nnxjfAjry, ) 
Plaintiff in Srror. ) 


This ir a ffvi*. o"^ sr-^or breupht to roverea a judfjJient 
of tho Municipal Court of ''hicafro for $506.15 in favor of the 
defendant in error, 5', Ingham (doinf Ijusin-iSE as ■'', ¥, 
Ingharn 4 ^o , ) and u/rrilnnt the plaintiff in error, Merchants 
lithographing Oowptvny, The dafeniant in orror vras T^iaintiff bo- 
low and 8U9d for the price of osrtain papar sold hy her under 
tha stylo of r. ''4, Inj^han * Company to the defen^ianl corporation, 
Her hill as eho^vn by her Btateiaont of claim v-'as msds up ».& fol- 

14.20 l^alance on a ca:« of Txic. 3, 1909. 

^^•9,93 fcr ip'^o sheet. 8 vf v.hite cgfcshell paper 
at :1.'.''! por thcurancJ- 
on a sale of Oct. 21, 1910. 

t-256.20 for 7000 EhsetB cf Post "urd paper at 
i' 136.60 per thousfind 

on u. c;ale of Dec. 2, 1910. 

The iter of |<.20 ras waived or conceded -y th^ pl.-xin- 

tiff on the trial, bu.t. the it err? of f.49.93 an J ^-.Z^t^PO //ers in- 

Girtwd on. They apprerfited $506.15, for .'hich ,i^rir?r;ent was 

■i rendered by ths trial, Tuur^ ,'.''ho triers the caee -lihcut a jury. 

v^ There v.'ae no qufjsticn ribcur. r,he dolirrery of the ptpor 

chvirf?'-^d for or its '^rQ-^.d price, but the defence •'■■aB a counter 
claim or set off. ThiJi counter clairr. v-an that the iten of 
^9.95 *f^B for p.-tpar '^'hich ?faB )*ar:'anted by tha plaintiff to 

oTI t^.i2I ^cd-:3j: do 



bf? of ouch n character that It couli "be run o-mi uised on offeet 

prssaee, ^mt whinh turned out not to "b?? of that character, and 

that on October 14, I9in, & wesV: h'iTore tha delivery of the paper 

constituting th« 1^-49. '?3 iten, thers wae delivered to defendant 

by the plaintiff 62^j4 sheota of the sarie ch.iraoter of pap«r 

(whits eggshell art cardboard) at the ti^io price ($i51,6o) per 

thousand, and that thie p^ipor v.'as alnilarly warranted ?ind proved 

similarly inferior to the wurranty, Tha defendant hrvJ t^iid for 

thio laet mentioned puper $206.l6, and now clfiin.jjd to bf reijYi- 

buraed to that amount. It c-.l&'> cl-uiTCSd - 

"Thiit at the: pj'ccial int'tanca incl reqvirtjt cf ths 
pla.lntif*' the flefendant conpij,ny did, after deliverinfi- the in- 
ferioi' quality of tu^id paper, und that it oculd not ha uned on 
the B!ild off Ret preeaea, rro to further expense and trouble in 
att'wptlnp: to ueo up said paper und th;?reby rslitrve ths plain- 
tiff from total loss of the said n^terial, and that by reaeon 
of caid further endeavtru to us^ up the Siuid pr-per d*3feridant 
company wai> put to a great s^nount of exnenae, Lo--it, 5 l/5 days 
of preet; woric at |20 (CllO) and i' larga trantfera i^t .t'5 sach 
(540). Total tl^O." 

The a<ytrrgt!:at8 of these cLir.F; thin cliiir.ed in sot off 
was .*.4r>^,,n9, which net off ar:alnnt ths plaintiff's claim of 
£306.1? Tfould ioave the plaintiff indaht'jd t'- the defenr.'ant in 
the nuts of i!'.9S^.96, for vhlch J'.df7;E;<jnt in itR favor should, de- 
fendant naintainiB, h.ive been rend^rt'jd in;:stead of tha juilftm-^nt 
aftiiiaat it for S506.13, 

Tha plulnLiff allerrod in anatfor to thlr. cliin of aat 
off, that ths pa,pyr dalivsred -/as not «arr•^ln^.od to be Rultabla 
to b«5 run and utod on off net preasea, and v.-as of jrood auallty; 
that che did not authorise the defen-tant to uuo sfild etock as 
statad in caid claixi: of t;e!; off; tha-. def -andant had d^JBtroyed 
Baid stock by print infi: on® side bofore not if./ in;?;' olaintiff that 
it wae une&ti::f actor;/ to it, and thr.reby made it ImTocsiblc to 
return naid stock. 

Ths court found the qufjationa of fact involved in 



this case - whether t^ere was ttny warranty of the character of 
the paper in th« sales of Octohar 14th and October 21ot, 1910, 
and a failure of uuch ffttrrnnty - apainat the daf endant , and Are 
do not see Any reason for ravorainfr his flndinR:. 

The frooAn daBcribad In tha set off w^^rcj not marufac- 
tured ty the plaintiff fc^r th<? defen.tant, but cold to it "by 
sajnple, and we sas no evidence tha" tho bulk dalivarad v;a8 
not equal to tha sample. 

Ae to tho implied varranty clained of th<» adeciuacy 
of the paner for tho ;!oe donifr'ied, there la noiY'inr. to uhow 
that the plain -iff or h«r ©alesinan waa ootter qualified to 
jud^'" of th« p&rtlor.lar •^"ItnoBC of fhu p.^por for it '-.han v/ae 
the "buyar, v;ho f.-aa th3 rovraoarstative of the dof tsndunt . 'fore- 
o'yer thiftre ware quoetlona of fact wh'j'hfir the pl-'^Jn'c if^'s repre- 
eentativs or the plCiintiff knaw tf u* tLs^j pt^per v/ae -ooufvht for 
the purpose of printiiig on offBOt prybntse, - ay)u aven tth^'.'th«!r it 
waB 6Uf f iciently proved that it was not roaconahly fit fox- that 

Ae to the espreee wurr&nxy ocntended for, i^- stas de- 
nied Rrd there c-'ar; a oirec'c nnnflici of t-vidence on the; subject, 
on vrhic^' the corresr.'cndencfi ^nd ouh sequent conduct cf tha par- 
tiee v/ars to b2 ta'vsrj into account. 

^''8 dc not t^-ink we should he juetifi-Kd in disturoiiij!. thie 
jud(j;inent and it is af '"irrrjC-d. 

I" acfft 

289 - 1S;29 

llarci. icrm, 1S12. Eo. 

VAX CITTET.EON et ul . , / ) 

Plain tiff 8 in ISr/or, ) 


vn, / ) 

) 07 ClilCAGO. 

■pAT«F?ri32 KKini-TMAI? «t al/, ) 

T)8fcnd8intB ^h Rrror, ) 


x.A. 6 


Th« judgment of nil oapiat and for costs in t.hia caee 
ag^inpt thft plaintiffs nraat b«! r^v-srced "tni t,h-'? cauBS renr^ndsd to 
the Vuvilcip&l '^ourt. Th« Bidt wac for brokory conifsii5«ionB on a 
sala or exchange of real $etats, The J»ry ,vera lnstruct<5a to 
finA for thcj daf sndantfl. Thin ?-'ae orror, tooauee th« plaintiffs, 
in oiu* opinitj/i, m-ide out i* pritia faoia c>abo, and It h'&'j not. defeat- 
ed, ao th^ defendants coutaridel an^v th-^ ;.-c>.jrt rul«3d, by the intro- 
duction of 56. dcarrse in a cause in equity to -.vhioh the pla'-ntiffo 
v/er£i not pai'tioo, nor ly v^hich, dc w<i thinJc, as defisn";&nta nain- 
tain, tha/ ■sej-e bound b«cauee in privity %-ith or rapreeentc-d l>y 
the ttctval pa,rt t«R, 

It. in not nsceeisary nor within our lefi 'viinate function 
to pap.e 'r.creiti on uv.y other quuation concerr.inp; zh>s rirr'';tf. of ths 
partiffB, The decree wats in^idr XBnlhl^j unl^ae other evidsnee than 
that prodv;ced in ^his; case i:g connectRd the plaintiffs ^-ith it as 
to mnk-'' it binding on then. 

If the f!:,ctf, vrhirh lee. to the dftcree in chancery ba- 
t%Teen ether pf.rtiee were auf f I c-iant to bur the plaintiffs from 
r<9Covery, concerning r.-^ ich '^'« exnrese no opinion, they should 
have tBi-n proved ae ji dafenc« in this case. 

Th« juuf.'ment is rsvers «d and tht* cause rajnandsd to 
the Mijnicipal Court. 


issii , 

iiarch Term, 1912, ITo. 
303 - 18343 

Appelli^e, ) 

) Appeal from 
VB. ; ) Circuit Court, 

JOHN E. COWLES et al., / ) 
Appellants. ) 

) Cook County. 

II. A. 7 



This tfih a petition for a mechanic's lien, filed by 
Hallgren, the complainant, against John E. Cowles and George M. 
Groves, owners of ar apartment building, constructed for them by 
the complainant. Other defendants to the petition were the trus- 
tee in a trust deed conveying the property, and the unknown own- 
<,^ ere of notes secured thereby. Answers ard replications being 
Unfiled, the cause was referred to a master in chancery, who after 
N taking proof reported, recommending a lien for *4,300 with costs. 

Exceptions to the report were overruled by the court, and a de- 
\ cree entered in accordance r<ith the recommendations of the master, 
^ from which decree the defendants who own the premisee have ap- 
1^ pealed. 

That the complainant performed the work for which he 
claims a lien does not seem to be disputed, but defendants claim 
that the building was not completed within the tiaie stipulated in , 


the contract, which was August 1, 1810, and also that no archi- ii^-^ 
tect's certificate for final payment was ever issued, as is said 
to be required by the contract before the final payment would 
become due. 
*^ The master reported on the question of delay substan- 

tially as follows: that the complainant had the excavation for 
the building almost completed and had hauled considerable iron 
and other material on the ground,' when it was agreed in writing, 
on January 14, 1910, that the commencement of the work aj^ould be 

Z^BSL - £05 


iMaqDjj\H .A am%sh 


T,oi1 XBacjqA 

^iiuoO iiuoztO 


^JCiUoO io.)':' 

;.Ijs Ja ai.TWOO -3 IIHOL 

, ,> ( .a;^njeIl9qqA 

^cf .is9d* lol i>9tfcK;i J^a.Too ^gniit I i;/cf ;^ni8<ci^iaqB lb ^o fiT©/iwo t89vo:jfl 

-sujiiT dxij 916W aoi^ijeq ^dif o4 a^oBbnslsJb -rsriitO .;faeai£lqfflOo efii 

-fluo awofliau 3d J Lne ^Y'^'s:© voiq edi gaiyfivnoo bssL .Jat/tJ' fi at »9i 

gaxacf a/Toi^^fiOjtlqeT xvtp oioy^SfiA. .Tio»Tedi^ cetaooa aed'orr '^o •le 

xe^lfi odw ^Yssoft/ido ni tq^sbai £ o;f bsiTeT:.©-! sbw sauso ed;^ tl>eli't 

.a^eoD di^iw OOC**? tol neil b snifcrtSMfnooei ^b9i1oq^^ looiq jftii^^ 

-»& 6 ;-".£ td-TiJoo ed^ Yd i)©I»ii8vo sisw lioqa? ad* oJ saoi^qeoiS 

^isJsera erii- ^o onoiJ'fit.Tacrjmooei sdt ditvi eoneb^oooB ni beieicio Q8*io 

-q« 9ved 3saiin9iq sdJ xtwo odw s^^siBbaelab ad* aaxoal:) doidw moil 


ed dpjtdw xol :i"TOw ed^t ,':offizolTeq ;tnflaJ:fiIqmoo ©d* *BriT 

aUalQ e*afii2n8'l8fc tuo ^'QijqBib acf ot saaa ioa aaoi) nteil ft easiBlo 

fu iio*x*Iijqi*a o^ii adj ntd^iw baJarqaoo Jon saw 'iati>Ltis6 ad* *Bd* 

-liioiB oa *iid* oaXa bnc ^OXv?I ^ j: ^eujuA obw doidw t*o6i*noo ed* 

biAe al SB ^biBwatiX Tce»ve ojaw *n8mYBq Ifiail lo'i 9*aoi'ii*a9o 8'*oa* 

bluow *n9aiYaq laail sdj ^xolsd *06i*noo od* yd bexxupatt ©d o* 

.9iib smooad^ 

-nii*8of£;e yaXab lo noi:*e©up ed* no boJioqat ■x9*8fio.i sdT 

•r.o^ noi*fcV8ox8 ©d* bad *aBniBXqriioo ad* *Bd* :awoXXol »£ x-f^fi-t^ 

noxx 6XdBi9bi8aoo baXuj&d bad bafi b9*aXqinoo *aof!iXB gnibXlx/d ad* 

^jinl*iiw ax baaxaa aaw *i nedw ^bnuois 9d* no XBiT9*Bni lad*© bae 

oci bXiJo4* 5(aow 8d* Tto *aafl!9on9tnfjoo sd* *Bd* ^0X61 ^-^X YiBunAl. ao 


postponed until the following year, it being provided that the work 
should not be taken up earlier than March and should be completed 
by August 1, 1910; that the work was resumed in the latter part of 
March, 1910, and continued from that time until it waa completed; 
that after the work was well along it was stopped by the city auth- 
orities on account of the building, as planned, not leaving suffi- 
cient space at the rear of the lot, and new plans had to be made 
and approved by the building department of the city before the 
work could progress; that the arrangement of partitions, closets 
and bookcases was changed frequently at the order of the owner of 
the property, entailing much delay; that the decorating was delay- 
ed in order that the individual tenants might select their own 
decorations; that the carpenters completed their 's^ork on September 
22, 1910; that the building was completed before the first day of 
October, 1910. These findings were alec included in the decree. 

After giving consideration to tho evidence, which it is 
unnecessary to recite in detail, we are of the opinion that these 
findings of fact were abundantly supported by the testimony in the 

The claim that the cielay in coKpleting the building was 
occasioned in part only by the owner or the architect is not sup- 
ported by the evidence. It clearly appears that the owner Cowles 
was constantly changing and rechanging the work, and that this 
caused the delay, and that the decorating was postponed at his re- 
quest 80 that the tenants might select what they desired. The 
chancellor held that the complainant could not be held accountable 
for any daunage, if damage there was, caused by the completion of 
the contract being postponed beyond the first day of August, 1910; 
and this conclusion is justified by the evidence. 

It is urged that the conLraotor is "liable for the rental 
value of the premises for the months of August and f'eptember, 1910, 
this being the period of delay in completing the building after 
the contract date of August let. If, ae we have held, the con- 

••';■■■' ^ '>.-' -raoda isnii rioafiM nBilJ o:9iIi6» qi/ fi©>faJ ocf ioc\ blupda 
— .^-ii fti beetuesa esw i-io^v =^'.-:i JfsriJ- iOXSX »I JsusJ^A. ^d 

-. '■*• ti Itinu »wx* i^fidt a.,: j.iilaoo bna tOIGI ^dox^ll 

. -- ,J b»qqo^8 8fiW it gnoXc Xle;? s': . iScv sdj led'lB J-sri^ 

■ a gniVBoX ;^on ^baaa^Iq bb ^sftM-XtU'., „ _ jooojb no a©i;fXrro 

''£.!! ifc . j ';Bil BflflXq wsn baB jJoX &iiJ "llo laatt axiJ is eOAsqa Jnslo 

■Jio 6ii^ to i~.e>-'\^rt^::i9>b Tj.TiM.crrJ ©ii^ vcf bevoiqqjB ba^ 

eJ^feeof V . ;.3a8T:80iq bXuoo tItow 

" o "iei>io £ tj ;/, Tf^^"-"P9i^ begHij-io 8**r ftSciiBoiooJ baa 

;: *:i'/"',? . iYsfsb i\o'J:f\ ^ntiiaitt9 ^\i'teqotq 9di 

^iiciBcisi Xfiifbxvio.ii 'S'Ai iBdi ifibio at b9 

JsXqaioo motR&qxBO BdS i»(ii {BaoLiBroofp 

■■'Ti''^ orfj STO't&tf b8Jsi..;noo 86W snlJoXiucJ BiH iBui iOXeX ^&ft 

.»errosi^ . bQbulorl -^n rr> stdw ei^/iii)!!!"? ea»dT .OlCf .TSdoJoO 

X ftitost 03 sciaaB&o&awn 
^ . /sea- 3di \'ci beJio n.i/cjB eT9W ioB'i '\o g^-iibail 


jnibXiud 9»i* gaidslqaioo ar 'ifiXeb ©d;^ iadi mtalo SilT 
-qua iJon si J-os^xrioifi sfli? "^ ' '*"?*/rT ■:> erii Ycf ifXno Jifiq ril bsnoiBBOOO 
v.aXwoO le/iwo »£(* Jflxl^t .»r>rsobiv& ©JJ^ Ycf be^ioq 

8xd;f iRiii bnf. ./i-iw ^. prfc^irr : -lerio xX^naJartoo iit 

3 ^\BX©b 6dt baauBO 

s/lT .baiXeeb yed* Jariw ^ToaX.- . i^.TSu sd^ ;rBd* oa Jeewp 

9[:iiio'.' Dfj I-n £• iroo ^afiaifcXqmao eritf *Bif# bXed loXXaorrerfo 

lo nolJaXqmoo »ds xd b©au«o ^aaw ©iral? ©j»Bjafcb ^i ^©sB«Bb x. . 
iOXex ,;JaagiM lo ^Bb iartli &di baoYu jaoq s^iscf iOBttaoo ©m 

.eonebJtvo bei^iJeut «! aoleuXonoo aid* b:;. 

*«^'^ 5l eXcJBiX al loiOMiitnoo Bdi iBdi Isg-m ei. jl 

jOXeX ^aodma;qe?3 bria J-au»oA lo eiUnom odi lol eafiiin©«iq ©d;t lo 9uLl:: 
i9tlB salLXiwtf erf^ srri^alqmoo ai taXeb lo boiiaq ©d* gnXscf aid* 
-noo .©dJ ^bXad ovad sw ea ^11 .;faX Jax/gc/A lo ©Jab ifoBi^fnoo ©dJ 


tractcr was not reeponsible for this delay, he cannot be held for 
any lose of rent during this period; c nd furthermore^ the evidence 
was that the ordinary renting oeaeons ir Chicago oomraence on May 1 
and October 1, and that it i e customary in renting flata in August 
or Rei:;ten:ber to give ocnoesBione in the matter of rent to October 
let. We see no reason to disagree with the conclusion of the court 
that no substantial lose in the rental value of the preraiBee result- 
ed by reason c*" tbs building net being; completed by August let. 

It is urged that where a contract provides that payment 
to the contractor is to be made only on the certificate of the archi- 
tect, the contractor is not entitled to a lien except such certifi- 
cate has been issued, unless it can be shown that it is withheld 
by the fraud of the architect. It would he a sufficient answer to 
this claim Tor us to say that in the abstract of the contract made 
by appellants there is no such provision as is claimed with refer- 
ence tc the time of payment. As abstracted, it appears only that 
the parties made a contract dated November 30, 1909, for the con- 
struction of a building to be completed on or before April 1, 1910. 
If appellants wished to rely on the terms of the contract they 
should have caused such provisions to appear in the proper place 
ill tiie abstract of record. We cannot search the record tc discover 
reasons for reversing the judgment. However, we find in the tes- 
timony that the complainant requested from the architect a certifi- 
cate for the final payment, which, for some reason that does not 
appear, was not given to him. 

It is said that the decree must be reversed for the rea- 
son that no default was entered against the defenaants described 
as the unknown holders and owners of the notes secured by the trust 
deed above referred to, and that in any event it was error for the 
trial court to fail in fixing the rights of these parties in the 

In Gef finger v. Klewer, 827 111. 598 (601), the court 


' iBiAoJujo 9 t ii tBtit bciB ^ £ tftrfo^oO btiM 

■' - ■ :iJ aobivoiq - Oii'i Jaoo & ^ 

'li 8«oX Ifil^nerfay' i.t 

Tibfli/d sdi "^0 :io&£;ii yd bo 

' 8i J' I 

J Oil ai lOJOBicfnoo ail 3^ ,-to»4 

.ioeildoiB 8d;r '!to bofsiTt e(I;t x^ 
:iS Xfi^ ot Bu 10'' mielo atdi 

.■"■'-'' .'•'- ■ joaaJaoo £ »b£sm esu: 

iM ^i i/Tq^i 3io.tea ro ,ij Lsi'c-Kjraoo 'jd oJ ^aibXii/d c To noiJOiiioB 
TC©d;J itOBiJ-iioo ^Ai " -o y-^w oJ bedalw a^lnBlXeqtiB 'I 

aouXq leqoiq - ■ • '^ivoiq doua beauiio svBd truoiie 

"isvooBlb o* bTOOf-i i'^TSSfj :-'''.t'-o yW .biooo'i ■^•;> JoeiJ . 

-39J 9d^ ni bnl^ aw ^levewoK .in^m^hii'i 9d# snie-i&vsi -u. t uo/joi 

-iTi^-rao b ;loe#i:doi:« od:r norr^ bs^astrpsi drtBfriBXqmoo sdj Jad^ laorsili 

' ■' "'-^^ ••- i noBBst ©ffioE lol idoiflft ^inBmx&q Hant'i sdJ tol sJ"BO 

. :■' "it nevlj ^Ofi afiw ^iBdqqB 

DftdlToeeb a^fnBJontBleb adi ieni£^& berBJn9 sbw ;fXuBlbiJ jii jcuj ik^b 

it8ui;f 8iiJ Yci beiuoDS asJ-on sd^ lo atenwo bciB aisbXoi anoaiau edi 8b 

9di lol -xoTie CBW St JriBve Y^« «i *Bd;r bae ^ot bsiialo-r evodB bssb 



■' fn?,' 

;■ rr 

:ax Ji^r 


said: "It further appears that certain parties defendant made no 
ar-awcr and no order of default was entered against them. Appellant 
aeaigns this as error. The defendants referred to are not parties 
to this appeal and have no consideration here. Their situation and 
interest in no way affect the rights of this appellant and cannoi. 
be euoceeafully urged by him as grounds for reversal." See also 
Portones v. Badenooh, 132 111. 377. 

Other points are presented, which have received our con- 
sideration but are not of sufficient importance to justify a re- 

Concluding as we do, that the decree of the clianoellor 
was in accordance with Justice and equity, it will not be disturbed 
but will be affirmed. 



J^'.^- saw ilv^Ssib To 'isL-LO on br.a tovRr^.B 

£)A£ aox^fiu^i© lieriT .e»a6rf noiietebiaaoo on »v«ri i>«£ laa.iqB «! 

j-Qi'.fljcjo fcnfi JaBlIaqqB atriJ ^o aid^lr e^t iosl'i^ Ycw on cil ^eexaJnr 
oaXiS 8sO " . liiSTtevei lol 8fj,ik/ots as wirf yd f^v/ia xlla^B^soous od 

.'"•v: . ■ :i S£X jitoonetrBS .v GonaJaoT 

-•JT B viiL'-r^'/t o.r 9ons..i v-vsi ^u9 ^ oi'fitra ^o d-on sra iud noxJ^Ti^Dia 
j.-..ji J- -^'w .^OL' i>w Ji.'r; j.i i v,.ij .. ono.. 

. £>9Hrai aT-xj o:' ' ' : - T ■' 


l,axc^ ^s^'^' 

i£i&, Ss* 

184I.A. 39 


506 - 18546 

j)>' Appallec, 



\ / 


Annie TXinne, hereinafter call'id plaintiff, hrouftht 
suit against Frank Kernardy, h«?reinHftor called def andant , in 
trespaoa on caco. The .jvirv r«turnid & virdlct «iwardinr hor 
^150 for daTT.afree, and judgrent was entered thereon, which da- 
fendant acks thie ccv.rt to reverse. 

To 8upx»ort her declaration plaintiff introdi;ced tfJEtl- 
mony tandinr to phov' that dvr^nifr an altercation be;t-ffeen the de- 
fendant and the plaintiff's huehand, in rhich pl-tintiff was at- 
tewptinr to he & peacemaker, the defendant r-'^it tohacco juice 
in her face and upon h«r clothes. This in the atory of the 
plaintiff un-i in BuhptrincQ of six cher eye v, jtneosQS. 

Th-j defendant ad""ito the altercation vith plaintiff's 
hwehand h\it de,'-Ann that h'3 r,rit nn T>laintiff, ano in this he ie 
corroborated hy three ot^nr eye ^itneeseo, an;^ lh« taut irony of 
two other wltn«oeee, "'ho say that aftar the ttllef;*3d occurrence 
thgy aaw no tohacco cpit on th*3 plaintiff. 

In this F.tate of° the t'.-^et l^'ony it waf< p-^culitirly fc.r 
th«i Jury to r-atyrr'iine which etory wan to he hfi'llevod, and from 
V. our sxaTfination of the record wo are imf^hly to say that the con- 
clusion cf the .1ur> tc orerlit plaintiff's rerelon of tho affair 
is not ..arranted "by the evidence. 


p t1 


-fnj on WAS X9itit 



Complaint is made of the irfl:iinn(».tory rwrnarka of tho 
attornoy for plaintiff in hia L'yeech tc th« Jury, Tha rsr;ark8, 
t?hich J4?peai' at laoine longith In Vn-i Eil>utrfect , ture highl/'-per, 
end vould Justify a rev«rsal If Ix. waE not rjanifect That their 
Intecrjioriince worked rather t^ the Aiuadvar.tage of tho plaintiff 
t>58n to *.Vie (lefandant. The ad darnxaa In plaintiff's declaration 
vas $'"} ,'^(^'0^ and anonr other things plaintiff's atvornsy told the 
jury fhat this awounl waa "not tco much.* Thf^ Amount of tho 
rerdict, Sl'7<^, Indicates ?hitt the jur/ was not infli.enned to the 
prsjjuiiic« of th« dsfeidant "by anything said by plaintiff's at- 
torney, and th-arefore a reversal -^ould not h« justified, "^ity 
of Saiei-n V. 'Srebstor, 192 111. 5^^. 

rearly al3 cf the ^itnoscea testifyinf; uoon th« trlstl 
were related to eac> otter, %vA the dirsturhiince In cri'-'stion f';l- 
lowad a verdict fuvorabls to ont- l-.ranch of tha fariily in a farrily 
dlsagreeip.ent ?/hich had haan carried into ths courts. Thic Tr:a.y 
hav>3 influonced tho jtry in ciich .a wiall vordlct. 

Setoinf: nc to dic-turl) the verdict, and thcra heing 
no ryvsruiVla errcre upon tha in at, the Jud.f^nont ..'ill "be af- 
f irtned. 

-« (I iff 7 .'i, 






r Gen. No. 8. 

Oct, Term, ^312" Agenda Uo. 5- 

Piled Aprji. l8, 1913- 

W.F. Potter., 

Plaintiff in Error- 

vs, ; 

S.A.Gibson. , A.C.Gi'bBon, 
G.A.Gibson, J.rrancie Miller, 
Illinois Natioi^al Bank and 

H. lITerriam., 

Defendants in Error 


Philbrick, J.- 

Error to Sanganon. 

184I.A. 112 

This is an action on the case originally brought by 
plaintiff a'jainst S.A.Bi"b8on, A.C.Gibson, A C.A.Gibson, J.IYancis 
Miller, Illinois National Bank and H. Merriam. Trial below resulted 
in a veriliot finding the Illinois National Bank, H. Merriam and J. 
Prancis Miller, not guilty under direction of the court. The jury 
failed to agree as to the guilt of the Gibsons. After a notion for 
a new trial had been denied as to J, Franc is Miller, the Illinois 
National Bank and H. Merriam, plaintiff dismissed his cause of ac- 
tion as a ainst the Gibsons, judgment was rendered on the verdict 
in favor of Miller, the Illinois National Bank and Merriam; plaint if 
in error prosecutes this writ of error to reverse that judgment, 

S.A.Gibson, A.C.Gibson and G.A.Gibson, owned the capi- 
tal stock of the Gibson Gear Manufacturing Company, a corporation. 
They were engaged in business in the city of Springfield, and did 
their banking business with the llligiois National Bank. Plaintiff 
in error a nxunber of years ago had been acquainted with the Gibsona 
in Ohio, the acquaintance was renewed upon a visit to Springfield, 
he visited and inspected their manufacturing plant, and the Gibsons 
invited him to purchase of them certain stock held by them in the 
Gibson Gear Manufacturing Company, Plaintiff in error insists that 
he knew nothing of the business affairs of the Gibson Gear Manufac- 


turing Conpany and was referred "by the Gibsons to the Illinois Uat- 
tFW * ^ ional Bank for the purpose of ascertaining its financial stand 
ing and the general character and prospects ot the business of the 
corporation, and that in pursuance of the reference xmm so given 
him he went to the Illinois National Bank, interviewed its officers 
and was informed by the jpa that the Gibson Gear Manufacturing Company 
was a prosperous concerui always made gooC with them and was consid" 
ered Jck by them as a good and profitable investment; that the bank 
informed him that the Gibsons were indebted to it in the sum of 
Pour Thousand Dollars upon : otes; and he further insists tbat after 
making this investigation of the Gibson Gear Manufacturing Company, 
and upon the statements made by the Gibsons, that if he would in- 
vest five thoueettid dollars i: their business tley could pay off all 
their outstanding indebtedness, being the f our t-housemd in notes 
held by the Illinois National Bank, and would ha»e one thousand 
dollars left with which to transact their business, and that they 
were in need of ready money for that purpose. That, relying upon 
the pepresentations of the Gibsons and the statematts made by the 
bank, plaintiff knowing nothing of the condition of the corporption 
other than t]iat obtained from th4se sources, and relying upon the 
same , 'ia^osed of a mortgage held by him to raise the amount nec- 
essary, and m£«ie the investment, that the representations v-'ere false 
and fraudulent and the parties knew them to be such. That instead 
of being indebted to the bank in xxsx notes to the aniourt of four 
thousand dollars, there was in addition to the four thousand dol- 
lar note between five and six thousand dollars overdraft at that time 
of which he was not informed, that other indebtedness existed v/hich 
rendered the corporation insolvent, that the state^erts were all .n 
true, false e.nd fraudulent a-nd knovm to be so by the parties making 
them, and relying upon them he invested five thousand dollars in the 
Corporation, and that v/ithin a few months thereafter it v/as declared 
bankrupt, v/hereby and by reason of the premises he lost his money* 


The cause having teen dismiBsed by plaintiff as to the Gibaons, 
the only question involved now is whwther or not the record disclos- 
es a cause of aotlon as against Milled, the Illinois National Bank 
and Merriam, and whether or not the trial court erred in directing 
a verdict in their favor. 

The record discloses that plaintiff in error had known the Gilj- 
Bons for a long time, belonged to the same church which they did, 
and upon his visit to Springfield he met these parties, they renewed 
the old acquaintance, and they invited him to invest in the c apital 
stock of their company, that upon representationejand statements made 
by them he determined t« make the investment, that he was referred to 
the Illinois National Bank by the GAbsons, that he called upon Mr, 
Merriam, the cashier of the Illinois National Bank, and informed 
him that he was cogitemplating making an investment in the stock of 
this company and talked with him concerning the condition and pros- 
pects of the coi:ipany. The most that can be said of the statements 
and representations made by Mr, Merrian: is that they were mere ex« 
pressions of opinion, that he made no positive statement ^to plain- 
tiff in error as to the condition of the corporation, its worth 
or financial responsibility, and that the information he obtained fcro 
from the bank regarding this corporation was after he had determined 
to m&ke the investment and after he noti.'ied them that he had made 
a raise of the money with v/hich to make the investment. Under these 
conditions, it was impossible for him to liave relied upon the state- 
ments of Mr, Ifarrlam in determining the question of making the 

Having arrived at this conclusion from this record, it is un- 
necessary for us to pass upon any other questions raised. 

The trial court did not error in directing a verdict in favor 
of defendm ts in error. Miller, the Illinois National Bank^, and 
Merriam, The judgment is affirmed- 









April Term, 1913- 
Tllsd Oct, 16, iiH3» 

Ag<^ncla Fo, &- 

Servian J, Kuuffman., 


David 0, Banner., 



84I.A. 163 

Appeal/ from County Court of Shelby, 

Opinion, Crei hton, J, 

This was a suit oooMnenoed before a Justice of the peace to 
recover a balance oiained to be due upon a tiling oontraot. Judg- 
mtint was rendered by the Juetioe in favor of the appellee , in the 
sum of ♦132., and oo«ts of suit. Appellant appealed from such judg- 
ment, to Lhe County Court of Sholby County, where the cause was a^ai 
tried, by the court and a jury, and a verdict and jud^ent in favor 
of appellee maA xxx and a-^ainst appellant, in tha sum of #117,92- , 
and costs of suit, was rendered, 

>Yoni this judgment an appeal has been perfected by tha ap« 
psllant, thus bringing the record before ua for ' ■■ ■^■■^ review. 

The question in controversy in the causa, gr-.^v oul of a 
contract for tiling certain lands of the appellant, u^ra ^&id contr^ict 
is as follows}" 

This agreement mads and entered into this 7«th« day of De- 
cember, A,D. 1910, at Pindlay, Illinois, by and botwoon Servian J, 
Kaufftaan, of Arthur, Illinois, party or" the first part, and David G, 
Banner, of Bethany, Illinois, party of the second part, witnessothpi 
That for and in consideration of the agreements 9f the second party 
hereinafter contained, to be kept and performed by him, the first 
party agrees to dig and lay tile on the farm of ..he second i>arty, 
located in section tventy-five, township thirteen, range^east of the 
5rd, F.U,, Sholby county, Illinois, at the foliov;ing rates: Bifrht 
I inch tile at 12 o, p r rod for aaohfoot in lepth; six inch tile at 

lOo, p r rod for sack f o t in depth; five inch tile at lOo, par 
rod for each foot in depth; 


• • 

, ,ro 



,i:i .1. 

J v. ■ (1 




on oha 5 anti 6 inch tils ahovo prlo* to^apply up to and including a 
depth of three feet, and im lo, per rod per inch abore 3 feet in 
depth; all work to be done In a satisfaotory manner, and &s soun ^^.a 
the w(^ath»r and other conditions beyond control will permit. 

In consideration of the hereinbefore agreemonta of the first 
party to^ ¥e kopt and performed by him, the said second party agraoi 
to pay to the firat party as follows: As fast aa ditch is dug to 
the extent of 100 rods the same Is to be inspected and if ^atisfac** 
tory accepted and a payment of 75 P^^ cent of the amount due on said 
ditoh is to be paid, when all of said ditch is ooraplited and ao* 
oepted the balance remaining is to be paid. Party of the eeoond i art 
to furnish feed ana barn room for firat party's teams and tu furnish 
a convenient spot of land close to water without charge. 

It is further specifically und<;rstood and a{-reed by and between 

the parties hereto that • and that all the benefits and 

agreeiaents herein contained shall inure to and be binding on the .. 
heirs, exeoutorsf administrators and assigns of both parties. 

In witness," etc • 

Aftet the written contract aboTe quoted was entered into, 
some changes wt:ra made by oral agreement, and this con^roTersy Is 
largely due to tin. auch ohangey. 

Y Upon the question of faot submit tad to the jury * ■ o-. ji 
ad to x.he opinion that the appellee's contention is suptorted by a 
fair praponderanoe of the eridence, and that the verdict and Jiidg« 
msnt in this oa^jia are right and just* 

Objection is made by the appellant to certain instruc- 
tions, two of which were modified by ih-; court and given on the part 
of appellant, and one which was ^iven at the requ=^st of the uppollee " 

While it is trtis that these instructions are open to critioism^ 
we do not think they had an unoua influence upon the minda of the 
jury, T)m Jury seGms to have reached a correct conclusion from all 
of the evidanoa, and the judgment of the court was properly ronder^^d 

Courts will not reverse a cause merely because of sozas irregu- 
larity during the trial, if from all of the facts and circumstances 

. r.o:.. 

. rr' Ifi-V; 



in the reoord It oan be seen that equal and exact Just ion haa 
b en done, 

Bcliering that no prejudicial error wae coranitted by the 
court in the trial of the cause, and belleviiig that Justice 
hae been done, the Judgment appealed from must be and ie aff irued. 



yiXV«*AO*^ < 

• 90 

J yxiTSiX ' 

1c1t5 •tii mi 

Aprll 1^13. 7p. /f- 5;^ 69.*"'^ 

u^. ^. 


Alva J. Hondrlcks, Ap|«llee, ) ^' a v- v,*-J^7 >'. / _ 

/ i 

▼»• / ) A—ppeal from Sholby. 


Willi am 7. Bd^ley, Aid^ellant 


Opinion, CR:5I0HT0h/j. X 8 4: I .A* X 64 

This was a suit brought by appellee againat appelleut 
to ro cover $500 designated as liquidated damages due, and the 
value of certain personal property tui^ned over to appellant 
under a written oontract for the exchange of real estate and 
personal property. 

The declaration contained one count, with the oonmon 
counts, and this count, is, in substance, as follows: that on 
the ££nd clay of An ust, 1910, the appellant entered into a 
contract -.Tlth plaintiff, to-v/it: 

"This agreement, entered into by and between v;, F, Holey 
as party of the first pert, and A, J. Hendricks, as party of the 
second part, v/ltnesseth, that the saif?. r^rty of the firtjt r>art 
has this dr^ bargained and sold, arB3 by theae present ^5 does 
bargain, noil and agree to convey by a good and auffi lent deed 
within ten days from the date hereof, the following real 
estate in Clay County, 3tate of Xllinoio, to-wit: S35 acres of 
land being all the land ovTied \:j hl?n in that county at the 
present date, land incuraberod to the extent of •^j'SOOO, plus 
interest from Jan. 10, 1910, on the |eOO0.0O. It is hereby 
agreed that s&id party of the second art is to pay to stiid 
party of the first part as the nurchase price of said real 
estate, the following property: 107 acres of leaid In Okaw ?p., 
togotber v/ith the follov/ing: 8 buggies, one surrey, 1 v;agon, 
2 sets double harness. 5 v^ets single harnesvS, 1 clipper, two 
collars, officse fixtures, etc., six horses £'nd it'SOO.OO in cash 
and one bay stallion and feed in barn. 


Said party of iSxe first part reserves the followlnr crops 
growing on aald real estate. All crops growing on It thia 
season. Posaeasion of the real estate to he riven iomediately. 
Deeds to he made and delivered on or hefore the first day of 
September, 1910. Said party of ttio first part horehy agrees 
to furnish aaid party of the second part an abstract of title 
showing perfect l-itle thereto; as does also party of the second 
part to pary of the first :)art. Should said abatracts show 
perfect title aaid ptirohase price is to be paid in the manner 
aforesaid. Should abstracts not aho»? perfect title parties 
are granted two montte in Tftiloh to perfect aame. Should the 
abstracts disclose a title so defective that same cannot be 
made perfect, then this contract shall be void and any and all 
sums of money paid hereunder shall be repaid to the party of the 
second part. Should either party to this contract fail, neglect 
or refuse to comply with each and every material agreement 
herein contained on his part to be performed, the imrty bo in 
default shall forfeit and pay over to the party not in default 
as liquiciated damages the sum of Five Hundred Dollars, r/hich 
has been put up this day by each party as forfeit money in t^e 
hands of ?. J. Snapp." 

And plaintiff avers that in pursuance of said contract ho then 
and there delivered the imnediate possession of the personal 
property and the 107 acres of land described In tho contract, 
to the appellant, but that a^jpellant failed, and refused to 
deliver possession oi' the 2'^5 acres of land lyinp in Clay 
county, as provided in oald contract, or to execute and deliver 
a warranty deed or furnish a perfect abstract of title to the 
sarne, end beonuso of said failure the appellant became liable 
to pay to the appellee the said suri of $dOO,^ forfeit ;.on^ 
provided in said contract, and by means whereof the appellant 



also booaiae llabl© to pey to the appclloo tho vnTue of the 
peraonal property t^loh ho reoolvod of the appellee undor tho 
aaid oon tract, of tho yfiluo of ^1,500. 

A plea of tho ^enor&l iaeae and two apeoial pleas 
^re filed by appellant. 

A trial waa had before the oou H; and a Jiiry, and a 
Tordlot and judgment In favor of appellee wao entered. In the 
anm of ^40, and ooets of auit, and thoreu r>on tho ap reliant pvyed 
was granted and r.«rfeoted Via appeftl, brln^lnr tho reoord before 
this court for reyiew. 

Appellee contcndo that 'indcr tho terras of the contract 
hore Involved, tho appellant was to make an«^ deliver hi?a a 
warranty deed and an ab^raot ahowlnf: thr title to the land to 
be free and olear of all inc5tt37ibrf>noea , m& oltea a long list of 
aathorltlea in support of Ms position, -e onnnot arron ',Tlth 
thla oontention, in thio rcnpect. i?he contract entered iisto between 
the partioa, while aoricwhat va-'ue, when oonatruod tocrethcr ./1th 
all of the evidence In tMrj record, clearly shoive to our nindJ?, 
that appellee vma to take the 2ii5 acres of land imbjeot to an 
incunbronoe of C>e,0O0, torrethor r.ltai the aocuraulated Interest 
thereon* In other wordsi, the ^-6,000 Int'tanbrenoc vraa a T'^rt of 
the purohaae rioe v7Mch ornelloo, tmddr hio contract, ofroed to 
Tifty for tlie londo In quoation. 

On the other hand, appellant contcnde that recovery 
cannot be }iad araln^t him for the reason apr>ell©G did not oomnly 
with the terms of hla contract, and therefore appellant haa the 
legal riprht to retain all of the r)©r30nal piroperfcy delivered to 
hiia aa port oeyuent of tho mirohaae price of hio farm, and cites 
a long liot of anthoritloa in favor of ^\iB contention, 

Whatever n.ey bo aftid aa to th< rule of law ani.onncod 
in said anthoritioa, the aaoc ore not applicable to the 
quoations raised on tho record in tbiJ3 case. Here at-pelltjat 


contracted to fixrnish appellee a warranty deed and an ahatraot 
showing perfect title and to pive iraiediate posaeaaion 
the 225 acres of land in question, in oonoideration thfxt he 
received the personal property as a part of the purchase price. 
Appellant failed to show a perfect title to the land by his 
abstract, nis first effort, so far as this record shows, did 
not show any patent from the United States as to this land. 
This abstract was submitted to appellee and specific objections 
were filed thereto, anong which special attention was called 
to unsatisfied mortgages which aggregated much more than the 
#8,000, specified in the contract, torether with other 
objectiono, and the abstract was returned to appellant, tlometime 
afterward, possibly within the time specified in the contract, 
appellant claims that he returned the abstract to Keller & Leathers 
office, the place desif°nated for the deposit of the deeds and 
abstracts, for examination. 

Appellee contends that he did not see or hear of the 
abstract after the flrnt time he returned it to jippellant, 
Whether he did or not, it ia evident from the record here, that 
at the time the corrected abstract was claimed to have been 

returned, there yet re-ialned of record iB. unaatirrf led mortgages 

amounting to 9500~00 while the contract recites th.e encumljre.nce 
as 8000,- with accrued interest: ' 

exoesid o.f n,^^„ on the ^ 
It is contended by appellant that t !X!3. vlSOO^mortgaBeJ" 

had been paid Iry him, although not satisfied of record. 2his, 

undoubtedly was true, aa diacloood at the trial of thi ; cause, 

but we fail to find that this fact appeared in either of th^ 

abBtracts, or was made known to api>ellee before the beginning 

of this suit, 

The record falls to show that any deed was ever made 

or delivered to appellee by appellant to this land, as was 


required by the oontraot. On© who seoks to Invoke tho rule 
annoanced by appellant, above rcferrea to, muat flrat offer to 
comply in full with hla part of tho oontraot* i'hla apf)©llant 
did not do* 

Appellant contends further, that appellee fnlled to 
give him pocnesalon of the 107 aorea of land, ana that he 
failed to deliver tho deed to the 3n«io, In thla contention 
i^pollrjit la mistaken, bocuse thn eridonoe of the api:>ellQnt 
himself, in this record, ahow that he admitted that appellee 
«ame to him eevoral days after the perao-'ial property had been 
delivered to appellant, end aeked and obtained leave from 
appellant for hla, appeneo*s, otook to remain in the j>astur© 
on the aaia farm for a ohort time. Baoh of these partlco at that 
time, we aaaurao, ooncilderod the deal would be coraploted In all 
resr^octs. "o far as appellee la oonoemed It ia evident he 
regarded tho title to his land had raaned to ap|)ellant, othor-;ls© 
he wtmld not have asked appellant 'a permlaaion to allov/ hia 
stock to remain upon the frna. 

Within two or three days after the contract In question 
had been signed, appellee dollvorod ovor to api^ellant the 
peraonal property dosorlbod in said contract, and alno the 
posooaaion of hia farm. ;Jo far aa tho title to apfelloo*o ftarm 
la cjonoomed, thic^ record fiooo not dlocloae there vms any 
complaint. Inriediatcly rJTtor tumlnr: over the. farm e&rd the 
poraonal pro}x:rty to appellant, appcjllec went to 'lay bounty 
to look after th< fern ho weai to receive, an;] found a tenant 
upon the aame who rc^foaed to jrive poaaesoion, bM wIk) elaissed 
hla leaae had not expired. Appellant tontonda that the clause 
in the contract of exchange wldch renorved to hlraaelf the 
growing crops, annuls tho other clause in the contract which 
provides for the imaediate [josaeosion* 


W« 4o not undo rot and that to ho the law» V;'hon two 
olaiiaos in a oontraot are anta^oniotlo in part only, they 
should toe onforoed In ouch parte ao are not In oonfllot. The 
roGorvation of the growlnp crops ga:v« appellant th- rlfrht to 
auoh portions of tho jRirm ao then had ^owinf^ crops thereon, 
for the tmrroa© of hor?«otlnp; and reaovinr suoh oropa. 
Appellant's rights on that farm, under the terms of the contract, 
wore for the parpoaos of f.iw^ross and egress to loofe after, 
harvest and remoTa the oropa and that only. The re»id«o and 
all othor parts of tho faira, under the ternis of this contract, 
if it had been carried oat, would have ^one ia«diatoly to 

Appellant, foilinc: to comply with his portion of 
tho oontraot, isi in no condition to insist upon a forfeiture 
by appellee of the partial poywent mt-Ao by him by tho delivery 
of the peraoaal proimrty. 

This declaration oeoka to recover for the toIu© of 
the atook turned over to apsvcllant anu for tho forfeiture of 
^500, as provided hy tho oontraot. Sbcre is no proof In thin 
record upon ivhich to haao a verdict for tho forfeiture of .,500 
end wo aasumo thnt the ootirt belor; :o hold, oa no ooaplaint is 
here raade ea to tV;t item. 

The personal property dclivored by app«>ll©c to tho 
appellant conaistcd of seven head of horsos, oi ht ^uf«'2^3, one 
surrey, aeven iicta of hornoso, office f l3rfeuro3 anl feed In th© 
barn. A niirabor of ^vltnenaes oxpreooed their of>inlojy3 on the 
witnoso fjtana as to the vvlae of the propf^rty, en? the proof 
is abundrjfit to auataln the VJ.lne th-roof as fixed hy the vcnitct 
of the .In ly and the jat^nont of the court* 

Appellant advert laod and aold a portion of tliifl 
property in t'nc town of Plndlay, vrhc.TG it vbjj located , upon 
short notice, and received © sinaller amount than sorao 'v7itnon303 

fixed as the vnluo of the property sold. He, however, took 
away with him, and did not oell, four of the horses, one of 
whioh was a stallion estimated to be worth about ^365« 
Besides theee, appellant took other property of some conslderfble 
value. Prom the whole evidence we conclude the judgment herein 
ie not excessive, and that the property was clearly shown to be 
of that value. This property was retained and converted to the 
use and benefit of the appellant wrorjgfiilly, and he Is liable 
for the vclue thereof. 

A careful examination of the Instructions complained 
of leads us to believe that no substantial error was committed 
by the court in passing upon them. 

Plndine no revcrsiblo error in thin record, and 
bel4evinp: that substantial Juiitlce has been done, the judgment 
is affirmed. 

jmouam: affihliep. 






y ■, 





April I«np, 1913- 

Hlka Felonious, olnor, «to« 

VS. ; 

Tho Natlon&l Bank of BcnldW 
Appellant., V. 

Agenda Ko. 62- 


184I.A. 184 

Opinion, Grrti hton, J,- / 

This was a suit be^i^n in the Clrouit Court of Ifaoou* 

pin County "by the appellee, "by rv«xt f lend, a/^ainst the appellant. 
The dcclaratiOB ao finally amended, contained one count, and, in euV 
stance, alleges that ^pi^^llant left a radiator standing of 
its bank building on the sidewalk, parallel with the building, cind 
pcmitted thti same to reciain there for a long space of time; T,hat 
said radiator weighed about one thousand pounds^ stood on four feet 
about nine Inches apsrt one way and four feet apart the other^ and 
that said radiator wa,s left standing in an unsafe condition; that 
the plaintiff, ttppellee here, was a child of tender year a, to-wit; 
of the xiqpi ai^e of fourteen years, and without ability, becau e of 
his age, to cx-erclse ordinary oare for jbi his own safety; that ap- 
pellee went up to the said radiator and pushed or rocked it find it 
fell ofer on hla and hurt his leg, etc* 

Pleas of ths general issue was filed and IssiM ;)olned. The 
c^'.use was heard by the court and a jury, ano a verolot and jud':inent 
in favor of appellee in the sum of |3»000. and costs was awarded, 
and an appeal wae perfected to this court. 

The naterlal facts aay be stated as follows;* the appellant is a 
National Bank, anc was occupyin/:; a brick building In the Village of 
Benld, fronting south on the Main street thereof, which had a cement 
walk running east and west and a side street, with c ment walk, ryxo." 
ning north and south; thi^t the walk adjoined the buildiag on the east 
ana extended out in th*-' street about nin feet , v^ith the usual slope 

o the street. The barJc was making some changes in the interior 
of its building and had employed carpenters for that purpose, and 


was alBO changing the plumbing and heating arrangem nts , and con- 
tracted thi8 work to the Benld Hardware Company or the sua of 
♦88, Under their contract the Hardware Company remoTed the radiator 
in 4ue8ti«n ana placed it out on the sidewalk ea the eaat side of 
the building, near the building , in an upright position, where it 
had remained for from thre» to four weeks. The radiator was about 
three feet high and four feet long and weighed about five or six 
hundred pounds. While in this positisn appellee, who was abore the 
age of fourteen years, chanced to pass that way and gave the radia- 
tor a push and rooked it back and then forward and it fell toward 
him and caught and broke one of his legs.and the break or the un- 
skillful treatment and setting of the lim*, caused a permanent in- 
jury. The appellee was mentslly - and physically an average boy of 
his age. He had attended school curing the school year and, at the 
time, was taking work in both the seventh and eighth grades, and ac- 
cording kpxkJw to the evidence of his teachers , was wel. up with 
his classes. He had been a resident of the xjbdks^stjftaat village for 
five years and knew every business aoai house and street in the vil- 
lage and engaged in the games at sohool, fished, swam and, in fact, 
took the part of a fourteen or fifteen year old boy in Vie amusements 
of the village. 

The vital questlea raised by this record is, was the appellee of 
such tender years as to render him incapable of knowing and reali- 
sing the Ganger arising from his act at the time of his injury, and 
te excuse him from the exercise of reasonable care for his own safe- 

It is earnestly contended by appellee that there is no presoitip- 
tisn of capacity to know and avoid danger in the case of a child 
of fourteen, but that his capacity is to be determined by the jury 

from all of the faots and circumstances iji the case, 

Granting this to be the jndkmof law, the question of the liabili- 
ty of the appellant In this case, does not turn azxx upon the ag© 


alone, but upon whether unaer all of the rTidence, thlg "boy, at 
fourteen years of age was capaTile of realizing the proba"ble conse- 
quence a of his act at the time and before the injury. The Boauudatadtd 
uncontradicted evidence in this record shows that appellee was a 
healthy, bright, energetic Tooy; that he engaged in all of the sports 
and amusements of the village; that he fished, ewaa, ana worked «^«^ 
aliout his home J as required by his parents; that he attended cohool 
regularly and understood and recited his lessons well and w; s, at ihe 
time of his injury, taking work in "buth the seventh and ei-hth 
grades of the school and was fully joi up with hie claaaes that he 
was familiar with every business house in the village and had trav- 
elled on the rail road trains and the trolley lines. 

This evidence discloses to our minds hat fact that the appel- 
lee, who was fourteem years of age, had as much or more experience, 
education, intellect and general knowledge , than the average four- 
teen year old lisy, Appellee»s act in pushing the radiator waa due 
either to mischief or unthoughtedness. Therefore, we cannot agree 
with the contention on the part of the appellee that the accident 
was due to hia cenaer years or luok of knowledge. 

It is urged on behalf of appellee that it is the province of the 
jury to pass upon appellee's ability to know and understand the prob- 
able consequences of his act. That may be admitted, as a g neral 
rule, but the duty of this court, in reviewing the record on appeal, 
is to pass upon questions of faCt v/liere the evidence is olear and 
undisputed as well as questions of law, auc to determine from all 
of the evidence whether the jury was Justified in reaching a given e- 

In this case it was a duty imposed upon the plaintiff, appellee, 
by the law (©f our State, to make out hie case by a fair preponder- 
ance of the evidence. If he failed ao to ao, he should not have 
recovered the judr^ment. 

In our judgment he completely failed to show any fact or cir- 
ounstance which in any way leads to the conclusion that he was not 



of sufficient age, exp rience aicai intelligencsto understand the 
proTsablQ conseciuenoes of .Aa act at the time he received the inju- 
ry corxlained of. 

Therefore, the judgmaftt appealed fr«m is reversed* 


Finding of fact: W« find f ae a fact, that appellee wan oapalile of 
knowing and under st an dini; the consequoncea of hiB own act at the 
time of receivinc his injury, and he was injured in consequence of 
his own negli£^ence« 









April Term, 1915- 

Jaas^'S Burbridge, 

Ap]:oll&nt , , 


John A. Hov</ard, et ul,^ 

Opinion, Creighton, J. 

Agenda Ho, 26- 


Appeal/from Macon. 

/ K 

I 184I.A. 185 

'C^n in the Circuit Court of 
the appellees, to recover up- 

This was an action of cebt 

Uaoon county by the app^l^ant, a^ain^ 

\ J 

on an attachment "bond. A Vial was/had in aaid oourt, ana at the 
eloee of the vicienoe the coai;t_,^Ye a peremptory instruction, di- 
recting the Jury to find the issues for the appellees, and Judgment 
was rendered in favor of appellees and a ainst appellant, for costs. 
This is an appeal bringing the record before ua for review. 

The material facts in the case laay be etat^d as fsljlaacsfse 
follows: Appellant resi -es in Fittsficld, Illinois, and was a hay 
dealer. He contracted to sfill two car loads of hay to the appel- 
lees, of Decatur, Illinois, and shipped the hay and dr w upon the 

appellees 'or the purchase price of such hoy, thi'ough a bank at De- 
oatur. The Ttxfi was not honored, and apiollant -hen cor,signc!d the 

two car loads of hay to W^ater H. Tob'^man, at Sast St. Louis. At 
this tlnjft the hay was in the yards of the Wabash Railroad Company, at 
Decatur, and upon "being advised that the hay had bC'^n, by appellant 
ordered forwar-Jed to Bast St, Louis, the appellees conunenced a suit 
in attache nt and a- the samo time filed with the Clark of the Court 
an affidavit, gave the "bond in uestion, and secured an attachment 
writ to iseue afjainst the appellant, which aaid isrlt coffimatndad ths 
officer to auzamon the W&baah Railroad Company aa garnishee, which 
was accordin{;ly done. At the time of the service of the aaid f^ar- 
nishee of the said Railroad company, the two cor load 3 of hay were 
in the posses lif ion of the said railroad ccnpany on their side-tracks 
at Decatur, and while in its custody ahout^ one-half oar load cf the 
hay was removed. Appellant was required to pay damages to che gar- 
nishee, attorn'^y«*» fees and other expenses incident to the defense 

of the attachment suit. 

Appellees contend that in as iiuch as the attaohment writ was 
not served upon p,ppellanjr and no leyy was maae upon the i.>ropBrty, 
the appellant haa no standing in oourt in u suit upon the atta ohin; nt 
"bond, notwithetanrtlng the fact that the appellees failed fea in 
their attaohacnt suit. 

The oonditions of the "bond sued upon, provides, that \vhereas, 
the appellees have prayed an Kiqi attachment suit ite^AkludMt 
against the eatate of the appellant, and then provides, that if the 
apj.>ellees "shall pros^^oute .heir suit with effect, or in case of 
failure therein, shall well and truly pay and satisfy thel»^ said 
Jtii&ee Burbric^Lge all such coat in said suit ana such damages as shall 
be awaraed against "appellees, "in any suit or suits thereafter to be 
"brought for wrongfully SU' Ing out said attachsient",, then the bond 
to be null find void, tc. 

It io adraittad in this record that appellees did not pros cute 
vHsir suit with effisct, "hut the same was dissiissed by the court at 
-heir cost. Therefore the conditions of the bond became forfeited , 
and this suit was accordingly brought to recover damages, as provi- 
ded in the bond. 

Under any viow that nay bo taken of this case, at least noniineOL 
damages should have been awar '.ed t.he appellant. We r fraln from dis- 
cussing the aiaount and raeasurc of the damages claimed in the suit, 
because-!?»Qf the garnishment and attaohment procee J. nr^s, for the reas 
on the ^Judgment must be rev(?rsed on other grounds. 

One error aosi ned by the appellant is that the court erred 

in refusing to permit apiollant to nook amend the declaration at ^^ 

the time of the trial of the cause. Section 56^of Chapter 110, 

entitled "Fractioe",^ provides, that at any jEi*K time before final 

judgment, in any civil suit, amendments may be made on such t rms 

as may be Just and reasonable, to enable the plaintiff to sustain 

his cause of action, or the dofendtmt to make defense. 


It is contended that the power to grunt laare to amend plead- 
ing* is within the discretion of the court. That, in a Beasure, maj 
Ve conceded to li true, 1»ut the discretion, in all cases, must be 
KSKSwaliiy reasonably ex-ircisftd. An was said by our Supr me Court in 
Bemis Ts, Homer, 145 111., 56?: "It Is the jBaiAyy policy of our 
statute allo\7ing aamdnents, that neither party to an action shall be 
deprived of a substantial rlr;ht through defects or osilssions in 
pleadings, or, as was said by the some court In Uisch vc, IfcAlpine, 
78 111., 507$ "Such amendment*, however, are to be allowed upon 
such terms as are Just and reasonable within the discretion of the 
court, Fut, Buch terms, in the language of the statute, must be 
"Juet and reasonable,* and not so onerous ae would practically 
anount to depriyation of t,he rights secured by thi statute*. 

We are of the opinion that the court should hare allowed the 
am- ndnient to havo be m made to the declaration , as 3idc asked by ap« 

The action of tte court in giving to the jury Ihe p reng^tiory 
instruction to find the issues for t,he aipellecs was error. 

The judgisent will bo, for the Season indicated, reversed, and 
the cause will be remanded* 

Revers d and Remanded. 






i.i^^ V^VS"/ 


yike Metaa,^ 



■ 1 
Peter Sanlchaa.^ 
Apr ellant,. 


Opinion, CrelchtonA J.- 

April Term, 19i.5* Agenda No. 29- 

i'iled ict. l6, 1913- 
Appeal from Vermilion. 

1 5Ai I, A. 1 8 

the appellee a ainat the ap«» 

T This was amiit ooijnienoed, 

pcllant, iq the clroul^ court of wrmilion oovmty, to recover a 
certain sum of money claui^d to bf due, 


r The dcolaratioB ocntain«4^>ho count, and, in aubstanoe, is as 
follows: that on the 27th day of Ssptember, 1911, at 2>anTille, In 
the said Cuunty and State, one George Charley was inlolbted to the 
appellee in the sum of #44; that he had br uc?ht suit in attachm nt 
af^ainst the said Oeorge Charley and garnisheed the Cleveland, Cin- 
cinnatl, Chdoags <Ss St. Louis Railway Company, which was, at the timy 
indebted to the said George Charley in the sur: of $39,, and after- 
wards, on the day of Ootob r, 1911, appoliant falsely and 
fraudulently agreed with the said Oeorf^e Charley to SRttie and com- 
proinise ihe claim of appellee in full, for tho »uja of #15*, and false 
ly and fraudulently rejaP'^sented himself us tho authorized a^rent of 
the appellee, and received tho aaia sum and rt^ceipted for the aame 
in the nam*^ of ajahc appell^eo; that appellee has boon put to great ex- 
pense in and about his offurt to co.lect the axak said sum, to the 
damage of the appellee in thf.^ aun of #100, 

A plea of the g-jnsral issue was filed, and -he cause was tried 
>y the court and a jury, ana a verdict returned finding in favor of 
appellee in the euia of $67.7J>'. A niotion for new trial was over- 
ruled and a judgment entered upon the verdict, iSxoeption was duly 
taken, and this appeal perfected, 

Many errors are asaigned as ground for the reversal of the 
, Judgaent herein rendered. 

In our view of the case it v.'ill not be n cesaary for us to dis- 
K CU83 any of the errors assigned save error No, two, -hioh isitas fol - 
1 lows: "The veriot is manifostly a^:-ain8t the wei,;:ht of the ':>videnoe" 

Mike Itotas, the appellee, was a witness in his ovm behalf. He 


te at if led that George Charley waa indebted to him in the sum of 
$30. J thftt ho oaae to Danville ior the piirpose of oolleoting the 
sane, oonmeno d an attaohment and f* garniahm-^nt proceeding and ee* 
otired the eerTiwee of the appellant as "bondsman; that he left Dan- 
Tllle with the Intention of returning on the day eet far the trial ^ 
and did return on that occaeion, but before he liad returned appel- 
lant, without any authority as agent or otherwise , had ca-iproalet^d 
his euit for #l5*a and the costs, and signed appellee's name to a 
receipt; that lie, ^ppelleee , did not owe the apTieliant at the time 
and never authorized the appellant to apply the amount of &aid claia 
upon his indetateaness; that he had S|»ent, altogether, about $40* 
in an effort to colleot this amount ; that his expenses oonsieted of 
railroad fare and hotel bills before this suit was comnienoed. 

The eTidPncef of the appellee is contradicted upon natarial 
points by four-witnesees, Richard Depke, the justice o- the peaoe be- 
fore whori the attachment suit was pending, testified that appellee 
come back to his office after the case was begun, and told his that 
he, appellee, had to no back to his hois, and that if a>iythin.<:^ came 
up, he, witness, should se d for the appellant; that appellant was 
going to tales care of that case; that when the defendant in v,he at- 
tachment case came to his office, a few days befojfe the trial, he, 
witness, did send for appellant and adviaed him to compromise and 
settle, because he did not know how the proof could be nj&de that the 
defendant in the attaohmont case was to iea"»e the Btate, 

The appellant testified that he had k .own appellee for four or 
five years; that in I9II appellee became Indebted to hi2:i in the sura 
of $40, and that the same was still luoutjbis standing sat and unpaid, 
when the appelle" cam« to his place of business and told hto about 
j having commenced the attachment suit a'-ainst George Gh-arley, and 
' asked him, app'^llant, to go ton the attacteif'nt bond; that he, wit- 
ness, said to appellee: "What about the account you owe me?, and that 
'• aippellee replied: •The railroad oomps^iy owes him (Charley) $59»» 

i and if : ou will tHke and collect this claim and square jduc w^ account 

*• you may have ifoj 


that he, appellant, agreed, and that he aftepwardg oonpromls d the 
oaee with said Oeorgc^ChaT-iej/and retained the money, in aettlomont 
of appellee.* aooount; that appellee owed him #30, at that time on 
hie aoccunt; that when appellee returned on the day the attachment 
suit was set for trial, appellant told him he haa settled and compre 
mised the matter and that then appelies oomplainod about having 
had to m^Jce the trip and 'got sore* at appellant, 

Feter leooons testified that he knew both par ies to the suit 
that he heard a oonvf^raation between them, in Septfimber, in which ap- 
pellee eaid he ownd appellant #30, and that if app.»llant would sign 
his bond in some case he would lot api ellant have ell he got out 
of the case, if it was $39, the full ai-iount, and call the account 
square between appellant and apr^llep; that appellant said the con- 
stable costs would hatM to be paid, and apiiellee agreed to pay saas 

Angels Pappas, a baker in Danville, testified that in Beptembsp, 
at hie bake shop, appellsj told him that he ran a buke shop in Terrs 
TTaute g^jj^ that one fellow ow d hia some money and that he gave papers 
to aprellant to g'^t the noney; that appellee said he started a suit 
against Mr. Charley, and that it ^aa all left in appellant's hands 
and he was to take cure of th<^ case. 

Can it hf? said in the facemof this nvidenos that the appellee 
furnlah«d a prei>on<:ierance of the evidence in the trial of the cause 
belowt We do not think it can. 

The vnrdict, in uur opinion, is olearly and manifestly agf\- 
Inst the wei^t of the »ivldence, anri*» the court erred in r fusing 
to grant a nnew trial, and in rendering Juci{iment uv^ainst the appel- 
lant . 

The Judf^ent is, therefo s reversed. 
We find as a fact that appellant is not indebted to appellee emd 
the clerk will enter ^acatgsncidc flnaing in judgment. 

R E V E R S IC 3^ 



April T«rm, 1913- I Agend* Mo, 32- 

I'iled Oct. 16, lSp.3- 

SaTld F. Turney., ■ 
Appellee , , 


John ^. CoTentry.,' 

Appellant* , 

Ajjpcal from Sholhy, 

X84I.A. 187 

Opinion, CBftlnhton, J^ 

Sd Vldiok iUici"\T,E,Wldlok f'^re partners under tho f irin nana 
and style of Vldiok Brotf^rs, engaftod in the buainose of lining and 
•elling ooal n«ar Plndley, n;^i4rfoi8,and had boen 30 f;a~a^od for the 
space of more than ten years prior to the 7th day of Aiigust, it|tfl[%y 
1909. Durin-: ail of that time the appellant had "beon a regular • 
customer of said firm. On ths 7th day of Auj5uat,l'>09, the appellee 
leased the said mine from the said v;idiok Brothors, and ylac^d Vioth 
of the brothers in oharj^e of the hualness of operating -he nine, 
sellinfT thf? cocJL, the aaro-^ as hefore the transfer. In the sitle of 
coal after the transfer, the emv-- printed ilia w^rs soot xiaodi as "be- 
fore, showin/: ooal bought of Widiok Brothers. In fact there was no 
app^rront c>iarv'-^ in the operation or nanAgeilpent of the bxsainnss af- 
ter the taking effect of the lease, except that t%?o or frtvee more 

n were eraployod after the making of the 1 

urine the time 

in question this suit the apr^ellee did not i^^tend to reriain at ths 
ine. Tout only Tisited it occasionally ima. on .hs oys r/hen th.e nine 
workers were to he paid, 

Vidick Brothers -.-iebted to the appell... cney 

loaned an. for meat furnished during: thf? simraer Just prior to the 
dato uf the leas--? to assist them in paying operating expenses dur- 
ing the jUkk dull season* and he ws to rooeivo co 1 in })ixyrr.<:nt 
of thy -same. Luter, when ax^poliant got ready to haul ths coal, 
(which wnas after the 7th day of Auuat, l'Ki9,) he called at the 
mine and said to y,E .Vidick: "I am now ready to ha\i.l coal,* and 
said yidlok said "I will s«e ahout it". A short time aftor, he said 

• 2- 

■Go ahead and haul at the scune prioe y ,u always haTe", After con- 

sid'^ra'ble ooal had Imen hauled, and on tlie 6th day of September, 

apj-elleo pr«aftntod his bill and ecuRht to oolleot fron appellant, 

who cl'3olined to pay, on the -ruund that his dealings wer<» with 

Wial-'k "^^roth^^ra, and that thoy wt»re indebted to him. Thia wn» the 

knowledge appellant had of th-:; leasa to thfc aipellee, or that 

he was Intereated in any way in the operation of the mine. Shortly 
aft»rvrards appellant made a sottlenient with Wldiok Brothers, and 
[ deliTer«d to then the note for money loaned and receipted their bill 
r meat, and :«ld the remainder to Ihe appellee. 

Thereupon the appellee "brought suit In the Justice of the peaos 
court to recoTPr the said acoount. An appeal was taken to the olr« 
cult court of Gh^:lby county where the Jury v/as xkK waived an i the 
eause hnard by the court, and a judgncnt entered arjainet ai pell ant 
in the sua of $115.26,,rkheroupon this appeal wai perfected and the 
oause "brouEht to thie court f:.r review. 

The prlncii>al '.question involved in this litigation is whether 
the appellant d'^alt with Widick Brothers unde.r such ciacunstances 
as shews that ha he believed at the time they were the principals. 

The proof in this record shows oioarly that Widlok Brothers vrer- 
Indabtsd to appellant and that he v^as to raocive ooal in the settle- 
ment of ths same. It is equally clear t'rora the direct proof and the 
circunetances, that the appellant had no notice of the interest 
or appellee In th?f mln as .rrincipal, and that Widick i'rothers ware 
aj.-' f.rsntly in charge of the i-.ijlc in the oamo capacity Lhey had re- 
bp'Tctively occupied for the pa,st t.?n yoars, 

"'iSJiicre a third poreon who has entered into a contract v?lth the 
ftcent in i-noranee of the fact Dnit hr- was not t>ie real .prinoii>al, 
as he assumed to be, is sued upon the contract by the T.rincipal, 
he rnuAV avail hiraself, as af.;ain3t the principal, of every dsfense, 
whether it be by corx'ion law or by statute, -. hich existed In 'us fa- 
vor against the a^'ent at*»the time the rrinoipal first interposed 
and Gomanded p'-rforaanoe to hiin8'''lf", 'iechem on Ai;onoy, Soos, 775 
and 774-5. 

The proof IszsitMt-Jt clear in this case that appellant did not 



mcan to deal with appell«e, but did Biean to deal with Wtdftck Broth- 
ers , and that he had no knowledge or reason for knowing that 
Widlok Brothers were acting for appellea until September 6, Every 
man has a rl/jht to determine for himself what party he will d al with 
■and If he has expressly d^alt with the agent to the exoluslon of the 
principal, without knowledge or reason to know of the rights of the 
principal, ho cannot be ma^e liable to the principal. The true rule 
has bef?n laid down as follows:- Where a third person, who has en- 
tered Into a contract with an ardent In ignorance of the fact that 
^'bo1fftf^6S;'"by^*llfe^''4^aff' iSaiSf^lfS he assumed to be, is sued upon the 

:]jjpie ma^~iitAil himself, as a;alnst such principal, of every defense 
which existed In his favor a-alnst the agent at tho time the prin- 
cipal first Interposed and dem&nd(5d performance of the contract to 
hL'^aself, Wlstir vs. Si>rlng8ldo Coal 'Unlng Co,, 94 111., App.,471- 
It is insisted that the rule v/ould be different when the orjdlt 
is soui<rht to b« made upon un old account, 

m The Indebtedness In the case last referred to was an Indebted- 

ness existing prior to the opening of the account, as In the cace at 

bar, and there the court held that the credit wu,8 properly given. 
view we 
.Under the xJUuuu u i take of this case, no recovery can be had, an J 

for that reason the Jud,7:cient appealed from is rov rsed. 


The clerk wll.; enter in the judf^raent the finaing of fact that 
I appellant is nut Slndebtedto appellee. 




^o, 6055. April Term, 1913- / Ac, iro. 58- 

Piled Oct. 16, 19/3- 

John Kaxon., ,., ..V-v-.^- j^ ^1/9/3^ .4 "-y/r '^ ^ 

VS, ; Appeal from County Court of Logan- 

George T:. Va-rley,, < 

184I.A. 197 

opinion, ci^eighton, -J.— ^ 

On tlarch 2tS, 1912- the appeAlee ooramenced suit against the 
appellant "before a Justice of the tieac* of Logan county, .here a 
trial waa had ai^ Jud :nent rendered against appellant in Lhe suv] of 
182,85, Mid c at»\of suit. Appellant then perfected an appeal to 
the County Court of^.sald county' and filed his bond on the 22nd- day 
of April with the cle):t^ of jsklid court and supersedeas raqjoxsHHa and 
au nons were issued. The first tern of the County Court after xhlidi 
jaid appeal was the 'loveEiber Tern, 1912, A pretended transcript had 
been filed, auinmons servsd upon appellee and the cavise docketed* 
On the first day of the said term the appellee entered a limited 
appearance and nored the court to dismiss the appeal for trant of 
sufficient bond, but the court overruled the motion. 

Appellee a^ain appectrsd on ths l6th day of Deocmber and enter- 
ed his motion for a ruls upon the appellant to pay the clerk of 
the court the docket fee required by law, Tlie court entered ?in order 
requiring appellant to pay said fee by Beceraber 25, 1912,, vliich ruls 
was afterward extended until 9 o»clock ofo:;>ecember 50, 1912, and the 
cause set for trial. At 9 o'clock of said day, the appellant not 
appearing at court either in person or by counsel, l-hr; court "dis- 
missed the appeal for failure to comply v.^ith said rule ;uid .'or xvfint 
of proceoution", and awarded procedends to the ^iustice of the p ace 

Ap; ellant filed a inotisn praying the court to sot aside the 
order of dismissal £uad five }iin an opportunity to : ake a defense, 
and sup] or ted said motio:i by affidavit. The motion was overriiled , 
appellant excepted amd perfected this appeal to this court. 

Six different grounds of error axe assigned as cause for the 

reversal of the judT^ient herein. 

Under our view of the case it will not be necessary to 
cuss any of the errors assigned, ot ler • ha;i number aix, --hich raises 

r t 


;. J : '"M; 

th-? questica of Ut« jurisdiotlon of tlio court aa to tlxo oubjcot lufi-t- 

ter involred. 

r I 

^rX P(=p(^ 

'J^ latter part of Section 15 ©^ Chapter 79/)ientitled •Ju»tlcea", 
eto«| r«a4ti as followsi "WliGxi the 1300(1 is filed before the juatice, 
9r the 8xii>ersedtta« is aorved ui on hiai as aforesaidi the Justice 
aliall return all the i)ai:'er8 In the caae and a tranocript of hia doclc_ 
et in the oaae to tlie clerk of the court to v^hioh tlie apr«al is 

takettf with u oertifioate under >ii8 ]iand lihat said tr;^3oript ejid 
papers contain a full tuid perfaot statement of all the \> ocae dings 
V^fore hlM"^ 

The transcript from ths jnotios filed ins the ca^e at bcjf in 
the County court, vrae not in fora a coiaplionse \7ith tlTC proviaions 
of ths Btatuts above quoted* Thorc was no certificate or pretendod 
oertificats of the , uaticd attached ts or aocompanyinc *he xretGn ed 



It has lone been lield by otir Suprcne Court that in order to 
give a court to which an appeal ia perfected jurisdiction -f the 
subject natter, the tr Jiooript iaust "be in subatantial oo: ipli<.vnce 
with the statutei^* 

ITot hiivinc ben certified to b;r the juatico, the instniiaont 
filed cannot be held to be a tranocript '.Tithi:: t3Tje sons© and noan- 
inj of tho atatutOi -ijid therefore, the covirt coiild not take juris- 
diction of the aubjoot 2;in,tter in tMs canee. 

Hot loaTing jurisdictitm of the sul^ject rratter, -h court could 
not ttake any order affecting the ri':hte of the x^^rtios Ci5 to the 
merits of the cause. Tlio court vs-oulc! liave 's-mA po^-^sr to have lird.rod 
a p'irfect tr Ji oript and require the i^aj^KJ to be filed. Or, per- 
haps the court v/ould hn,vo had pOMrer to enter any other prclininary 
order noceasaiy to the preparation of tlie caao for trial. But, im» 
til the court acqiiirod loc^^-l jurisdiction of t^i.e subject nr.ttar of 
the 1 rocending. It a po^/er was lir:>ited to prellninary orders. 

"IToceedincs in tliR circuit court arc based on t^-e transcript, 
f^nd It has wiifoRoljr boon held tliat without a tr^jiocrlpt of t'.e pro- 
dines before tJie juatice, thf^ Circuit cQ^rt has no jurisdiction 


of the sutjeot roatter, Vhe lu t;uni.'errinc J '.iriadiction on the clr- 
cult cotirt provides for tlie troaacript of tlic cause to i'iuxt court, 
and when :ai ap}^Rl hae been talcm, hn cour ay obtain Jurisdiction 
of thi3 BubJGct matter by reqiiirlng a truiBoript •!• be filed, but 
until that ia done It will have no Jurladictlon to try t3ie cauoo*. 
Denllly to, Gro«Tftnaud, 201 111,, 284. 

And, in }!u3ton t«« WirlGlit, 158 111.^ App, 28*, the saiae doctrine 
wae ann unoed, In the follorrlng langua{;et "^ile the county court 
had JurlBdiotlon of the person of the parties, it had no juriodiotion 
of the subject ruitter of the jult, because there was no tr nscrlpt 
of the prooendlags be ore the Ju tloe of the peace". 

It Is urged by appellee tliat tlvt apjoaranoe of appellant by 
covinsel wlten the case was called for trlal^ and aftcrwardsf appear- 
ing In court and entering a motion to set aside the order and Juds* 
ment of the court, was a walrer of the Jurisdiction , and iliat, tlicre 
fore, the appellant cannot now be heard to complain. 

The effect of appelleuit^s appearance could not ^esult in ^[^ivinG 
the court Jurisdiction of the subject natter, Tlrr-t could only be 
conferred in the raanner provided by the statute. 

Wo are cf the oplni<m the court liad no jurisdiction of the sub- 
ject natter, findtlmt the ordor iisenissinf; the appeal v/r^s erronf^oua. 

In Reod vs. Drlscoll, 84 111,, 96, lihn court, after qt^oting 
the statute of l8'''-5 relative to the dul-ios of jTiStices of the 
peaoo In ca of apical to the :;ircuit court, tmd \^rhich statute 
was In substance the sar/jn as our ire sent statute on tX'i-t gjn-^j ct, 
and here involved, salda "Prora tliose p ovision* It ia . manifest 
that the law deelenated that the proceedlnes In tlic circuit oour'^t 
shotad be based on the tr -nscrlpt. It sui^plies tl^ place cf a decla- 
ration In criminal suits at law In covirts of record, where ^?ritt<?!i 
pleadings are had. Tlif; 00 rt liad no rcv.-cr to cLl mioa the apy-eal 
until there was a transcript on file". 

For the reasons above stated ths j'ad;?rtent and order of the 

court iaiissing the appeal, is roversed , end 'he cause is romm ed 

ilh <lrr>otions to redocket the cniise raid -i-zo op. ortuiiity to ile 
a conplete transcript of the isrocceJings in the ju.rvtioe of tlie peaoo 
court. Reversed anc*. rerianded witJi diroctions. 







^■.i 53 

'^-^... '"^ 

6059. April Terja, 1915- Agenda Ho. 41- 

Kate Brown lizard,, Adatx., 

ViYian Collier iee Co., 

TB« \ \ Appeal from Uacoupln, 

184I.A. 199 

Opinion, Creighton, J* 

Thie/is an action on/the caee to recover for the death of 
one Qeorge Brovn, who was killed in the mine of the appellunt on 
the 8th day of lUarch, 1;>11, fli being run over by a motor car and 
train of coal oars, while tp was working in appellant's mine aa a 
trapper and switehman. 

The declaration conrt.uin8 one count, alj. other counts havinr; been 
eliminated before vkA^ause was submitted to the jury, and i&, in 
substance, as follows: that the appellant was operating a coal mine 
by means of entries or roadways on which oars moved to and from the 
bottom of the mine; that airong said entries were the third and fifth 
north off the >ain entry; that at a point about tv/enty feet from 
where said connecting entry left said third north entry, was a cer- 
tain switch and at or near which was a certain doorwey; that on the 
day of the injury the appellee's intestate was stationed at said 
switch or doorway as a trapper, and in addition to said trapring du- 
ties, it was his duty to operate said switch lor the movement of 
cars over same; that said entry at the place There appellee's in- 
testate was stationed in performing his duty as aforesaid, th^re was 
a certain dangerous condition, in th:'.s, that on -ither side of said 
track thfjre was a large quantity of gob, 6_ate, rock and other 
loose material of a thickness of-four feet; *-hat the rib on either 
•Ids of said track was of a distance of ten inches from the side 
•f the ear ^hen passing; that appellant wilfully failed to place a 
conspioious mark at said dangerous place so constituting said dan^^er- 
ous condition; that the appellant failed to report the finding of 


tald daqscrous condition to the mine manager; that by reason of the 
failure of appollant to oliserTe and obey the previa ion a or the 
Mines and liincrs Aot, v/hile hor inteetatn waa diaoharring the duty 
aforesaid, he waa struck by a noving car trayclling upon the said 
track in said connecting ntry and crushed, fatally injur inc Mm and 
fro.': which he died. 

A plea of the general iasuo waa filed to t^ ia declaration and 
thf cauae waa sutoitted to the court and a Jury and the verdict of 
the Jury waa returned finding the appellant guilty and aaae skiing ap» 
pellee«s damages at |2,500. Motion for new trial waa overruled by 
th(» court ancl a Judgment entered upon th?? verdict, whereupon appel- 
lant prayed and perfected thia appeal. 

The Bubatantial facta aa diacloaed by thia rcord ore that one 
George Brown waa enployed aa a trapper and awltchmen by the appellant 
In its coal mine at the time of hia death, hia principal duty on the 
cay In question being to throfr the awltch and open the door a leadiat 
into tr? cks into entries thj-ee north and five north, off the main 
entry, when signalled to do so by the trlpman/, who occupied a posi- 
tion on a motor hauling: the cars. Theae algnals werr glvun by a 
lighted lantern. A signal straight up and down signified that the 
motor man wanted to r.o upon the third north trr.ok, and a cross sig- 
nal indicated that*"lui he wanted to go upon the fifth north track. 
Theses signals wsre well understood by the tripman and the gwttoh- 
man, as "both were experienced operators in ihelr respective occupati- 
tlons. On the day of the accident here involved, the trlpman was 
at his post of duty on the motor car and gave the signal straight 
up and down and appellee's intestate, as swltchmEUi, observed the sig- 
nal and repeated it back to the trlpman, as waa required b^^fore the 
motor nan could proceed. At the time the deceased repeated the sig- 
nal showing he underetood It, ^ waa going toward the switch, and 
the motor man then moved hia car forward in the usual manner and 
.^A<?L_'l9.* ^?**^^c® ^^® deceased ar^ain until he discovered that he wo.s 



going upon th« fifth north mtry track, in place of the third 

north. He then leaned forward and saw the d^oeased standing In the 

middle of the fifth north traok juet a ehort r.iatance in front, arid 

he then called to the deceased tq get off the track and deceasf^d 

made a step but was etruck before he ouuld get cut cf the vay of 

the motor car and his body was dragged cunelderable dietunce and the 

motor and a portion of the cars pasacd over his body, and death fol** 


It is difficult to tell from uhia record the exact point at 

which the accident occurred, but alo^i in that n i<?;hborhood, and par 

haps at x.hQ exact point, Isurge quant i ies of gob 1m^ o$ each side 

of the traok, Turiouoly estimated by the witnesses at from a few 

Inches to two fee tin height, at so^1e points extending to within 

a few inches of the traok, and at other plaACs there wa^ a clear ziote 

space of from two to three feet. There was no danger mark to ho seen 

in the Ticinity of the pleuse where the cocioort occurred* 

Appellant assigns as groimd for the revrrsel of the ^\}6r?ner\t, 
xlkk eight different alleged error*. Under the vie'? w? take of the 
case it will not be necessary to aiaousa tuiy of these except the 
second, v/hioh is as follows: "The court below w <5rr«Jd in overruling 
d fcndant's motion juc made at the conclusion of the plitintiff's 
evidence, to exclude uli of he evidencr^, and in refuuin,^ to Instruct 
the Jury to find a verdict for the defendant. 

The appellee aerras to rely on her ri^ht to recover in this case 
under her declaration which avers that there was large quantities 
Of gob on either aide of the track at the point "^here her intes- 
tate met with the accident , which created a dangerous condition, « 
and that appellant was guilty of negli'tence in failini) to hav? said 
dftngerous cone it ion examined by the mine exasiiner, and marked, as the 
statute requires, 

in order to enable the appelle to recover in thia case for the 
vilful failure to comply with a provision of the statute, she rrjust 
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that such failure was the 


proximate cause of the injury complained of. In support of this doc 
trine we quote froa Yeates ve, I.C.R.R.CO/, 24-1 111,, 205, ?rhere 
the court say I "It wase necessary to prove the negligence charged 
was the proximate cause of r,he injury , and the nearest ix. indepen- 
dent cause which is adequate te produce and does "bring about the 
acoideat, isthe proximate cause of the same and supercedes any re- 
mete caix8e"« 

And, in Odoriesi tb. Southern Coal and Mining Co., 151 111., 
App., 395 1 it is said: "The plaintiff's contention eeems to l>e that 
it was not necessary for him to prove that the violation of the stat- 
ute was the proxiir.ate cause of ^is injury ts entitle him to recover 
The plaintiff says in nis argument: 'If the pit-toss of the defen- 
dant in error had not or erod the plaintiff in error to ,::o there and 
work in the room, which was opened up in violation ofthe law, 
he would not have been in.iured'. That is true and it is also true 
that the room was opened in advance of the air current in ^nfiii 
violation of the statute. But t}iat is not enough. It must further 
appear fro'^^i the evidenee'ohat if the statute had been complied with, 
that is, if the proper cross cut had "been made in adVBBseof this 
room and the air currert had teen travelling properly thereby, 
that the plaintiff v/ould not have "been Injured* In other words , 
the v.-'ilful violation of the statute raust "be shown to have "been the 
proxiEiate cause of i: e injury, Failing to introduce evidence prov- 
ing, or tending to prove, this material and neoeseary elemf^nt of 
recovery, the cause was properly t Jken from tihe consideration of 
the jury," 

See also Schlapp vo, MoLeaa Go,, Coal Co., 235 IHo, 650 
and Paietta vs, Illinois Zino Co,, 153 111., App., 506, 

The circumstances surrounding the accident must "be understood 
lin order to determine what was the proximate cause of the injury, 
IThe deceased was directed to tl-irov the switch admitting the motor 
»»nd cars to the track on the third north entry track, I^ttead, "by 
»i«taVfi wB au-DT)oae. ha opened the switch permit ;ing the motor and 

t ( 


cars to n enter the fifth north eulry track, und then, for goiae 
unaccountaTjle reason, went several fset forward in '.he direntlon in 
which the motor and w oars were running and stopped in the middle 
of the track, and was seen standing there ^hen the motor man passed 
onts that track and dlicovered that the deceased had swltohed theja 
onto the track in the £Udi fifth north entry in-stead of the one in 
the third north entry, a3 intended. 

It would seem that the deceased felt sscurs in the position taic 
•ft by him, for there wa« no effort on his part to Iftavf? i>itil the 
motor man called to hia, and he then aade an effort tc step eff 
¥ut was struck "by the motor car. 

Appellant insists that the accident occurred 'cy reason of the 
deceased opening the switch into the fifth north •ntry fey mistajre, 
and, thinking he had epened the switch into the i-^kibc^ third north 
entry, he took his position en the fifth north track, which h>-! re- 
garded as safe. 

Be the reason what it niay ks for his ad: ion aijc at the time , 
it is conceded that he was directed "by the signal to open the switch 
into the third north entry: That he understood the signal at the 
time cannet "be open to question, as he repeated it brick as the rules 
required* • 

The question here presented is, what was, undtr all of these 
OlrcxiiiistanceB, the proximate cause of the death of appellee's intes* 

It is insisted by the appellee that the death was "brought about 
in consequence of the failur* of appellant to mark the pl&oce which 
•he contends were made dangereus by the accumulation of gob, ae the 
statute requires. 

To sustain a recovery the proximate ct.use cf the death of 
appellee* 8 intestate, like any other aaterial fact, must be proven 
by evidence introduced upon the trial of the cause, to have been 
the result of the wilful failure 6f the appellant to comply wioh the 
statute by marking and giving notice ef the dangerous places, 
as allegred in her declsuration. 


Appcllee made proof of the failure of appellant to mark ae dan- 
gerous the point at which her intestate ioat his life, but '*^e fall to 
find any evidence in th^ raoord showing t}iat the point in question 
was made danger oub lay the accumulation of goli, s^x4tb»c1c:xWsift3<xRftJ«t^3c 
tex3ra«atxi«ttxx«3ca3«afflk9t3<daiaa*35«)^ or that 

the aba-nce of gob at .he point would have prevented the aocident« 
Seithsr is there any evidence In this record that appellee's intes- 
tate could not nave secured iiis safety by getting off on either 
slds of the track, or that he niade any effort to find a plaoo of 
safetyjoac xtxiasn xxxx xt jjOcx joucodfc until his attention was ai^tract** 
sd "by the motor man, t\.nd that he- then made an effort to akay step, 
but that the tine intervening was so short that he was unable to 
get away. 

Can it be said that from the description of the gob on either 
sloe of the trtsck, as c iacloBed by the evidence, that appel- 
lee's intestate could not have found a place of safety in eai^ reach, 
if he hud expeoted that t>..e motor and train of ears was entering 
the tr£.ck in entry five north. 

The more reasonable conclusion to be reached from the evidence 
in this record is, that by mistake appellee's intestate threw the 
switch leading into entry fifth north, and, thinking he had obey- 
ed the ordex- givan, ^'-ent over ijdcjEkhx into the middle of -che eald 
track ar-d aio noz realize the mistako until it was too late» 

\'e think It was necessary in order to sustain thie deolaration, 
that the appellee rrove, by a preponderance ol the evidence, all of 
the i:atarlal allegations contained therein, 

"It ic ix-^'-posolble from the evidence to say whether the airt 
created a aangerous condUion, but whether it did or not, there was 
no connection vshtitever betv/eon it and the death of Cook, and thexidai 
plaintiff could not oojiplain of the no^lect of a ciuty, whether wil- 
ful or otherwise, which aid net cause any ir^jury to her, Thero was 
no evidence tending to show that icfciat x the dirt caused or contribu- 
ted in ar.y manner, or ar^y degree, to the accident". Cock vs. Big 
iluddy Coal Co., 249 111. 41- 

( f 


The langtiage Just above quoted announces the true rule i,& to 
the degree of proof, and is peculiarly applicable to the facta 
in the case at bur, 

For the reaeona given a^oTe we conclude that tl\e apjelleo fail* 
ed te prove her cuuee of aotiaa a» alleged in her (ieclaratl«n, and 
that the court erred in not friving to the jvry the psremptory In- 
Btructien s.e asked by the appellant. The Ju<3f::ment is, therefore, 
Ti versed, 

R E V E R S E r>. 

Pinding of fact: "We find as a fact that the negli^^ence charged 
in the doolaration was not the proximate cause of the injury to ap- 
pellee's intestate. 





6o6>; ^ April Ter», 1913-/ Agenda No, 44- 

Piled Oct. 16, IJ915- 

R.C.Cox, et al., Trustetsa of 
Aar>rioan Lodge, I.0.0.7,«920., 


VS« i Api^<^al flrom Banf; anion* 


Ap,.u^. / 18 41. A. 200 

Opinion* Cr»l^hton, J, 

This suit waa < rounht b^^foro a justice of the peaoe of san^T 
amon County by the Vppdlc^^ Loijie aalnat the appellee, to recoTer 
the sua of %lQt^ claimed to !»« iiue from him to ihe Lodge. An appeal 
was had and taken froft the jygrient of the said Justice of the 
peace, tu the Circuit d^urt of Sang&'non County, where the cause was 
again tried, by the court* Uron the hearing the court found the !•• 
sues for the plaintiff and assessed plaintiff's rtasnages at the sum 
of $10., and found "that the sum of Ten atxxxxxxx jollars was tender 
ed by the defendant to the plaintiff and kept ROod and same is now 
on deposit with the olerk of this court", 
^ Motions for new trial and in arrest of the Jud^ncnt wrsr*? 

filed and by the court oTerruled, antl this appeal was thereupon pray- 
ed, gra ted and perfected, , 

The following are conceded to be the material facts connect 
ed with the transaction out of which this ault grew. The appellee, 
as an officer of the appellant Lodge, on October 1, 1908, leased the 
hall in which appellant mot, at Sherman, Illinois, as aent or rep« 
resenLatiye of the lodge, abd became personally responsible for the 
rent, and Jtii from that time on paid the rent, sometimes out of mon- 
eys belonging to t.he appellant and at other times advanced hie own 
money aad oreaented the rent account to the lodge later, when it 
would be approved and paid. This ■■HSHgaiaUUl arrangement continued 
until the time in que tuition in this suit. About the ist of May, 

1911* appellee notified xp the appellant that he had rented the hall 



in hl8 own nama and that they oould use it on the ■ame nlf^ht they al 

ways had an were to pay to hla the same rent they had thevBiofore 

paid, ApTCllec paid the rent fur Ifaroh and April in the name of ap- 

pf>llant, and aade out a bill for the aum of #10 ,, and presented a 

bill to appellant for the rent due to him, as lessee, for the months 

of Hay and June, 1911., and at the same time made report of the ool* 

leotipns maae by hia for rent due the appellant • The collect ions 

reported Vy him amounted to the sum of ^50* The amount due tu him 

for rent advanced for appellant and rent duo to him as lessee, a* 

mounted to $20., leaving him indebted to the appellant in the eun 

of |10,, which he then tendered and offered to pay. T)i« tender was 

deol^ined At the time the appellee leased the premisf^s m his own 

name, i.t was agreed that appellant should continue in possession 

at the same rent as before and the appellant was advised of that ar« 


raagemant ana oontinudd to occupy the hall for the months of Msy, 

June and July, I91I, 

Apjwllant aseif^ns as the principal -round of error that the 

court erred in eJ.lowing appellee to set off suins of money paid to • 
the owners of the building, af:ainet the mamm sOm# due to appellant. 

It aj pears from the < videnoe in this record that appellee, while 
acting as an officer of the appellant, contracted for the uee of 
the building in question for the use and benr^fit of the appellant, 
and from that time on, as representative of the appellant, he had" 
paid the rent when it became due, aomo times out of his individual men 
ey, in which case bills were presented to the appellant and allowed 
and at other times he paid said rents with ^-^^onoy belonging to appel- 
lant. This ananfjem nt continued up to the time of the paym^^nt of 
the rent in queetion, without objection on the part of appelant. 
The first objection- to this atrangem<nt, eo far as this record dis- 
closes, was after the appellee had, as usual, paid the rent for the 

appellant aruounting to the su--: of ^20, collected money o^ing to ap- 
P^llant in the eum of «50. and prssented a receipt for the rent and 
••ked credit for the saae, and tender- d the su^ of #lo'. in cash'. 
Appellant declined to allow appellee credit for the #20'. rent paid 
>y him for appellant. It was admitted that the |2o', rent so paid 
'as a Juet debt. 


W« l>ell«T« appellee aotnd In r^ood fftith In the paym nt of tliA 
rent in question, and full>' expected appellant «>ould rslmburee hiai 

for said advanoeoent Just as they had done in ' very insteoice Ijefore, 
Under these otkroiunstanoes it appears that there was an implied 
obliga'uion on the -part of appoliant to 'ivs credit to appellee for 

the amount of the rents so paid by him, for the reason appellant 

had reoeiTed and aooepted the use of the building and the serTloas 

of appellee in a like oapaoity for fire years last past prior to. 
the transaction here involTed« without objection or controversy* 

Vs find no roTersible error In this record, and belieTinc that 

Justice has been done, the Judgment is affirmed, 








No. 6070, 

Joseph £• H«lfx>ioh, 


John 7. Scott, •, 


April Term, 1^13- 

Agenda lia, 47* 


1S4I.A. 201 

Oplnipn, Crftightoii, J,- 

Thls was cvn action in a8dna|>8it to recover upo^ a promis* 
Bory not«. The dcolwration wae in the usual form with afficayit of 
merit a attached. \ / 

The plea of x"^ general issue and seyeral special pleas, 
which, in effect, ratlsed ths statute of limitations, want of consid- 
cratiOB und that the basis of the olain for which the note was ex* 
eouted, was a gambling debt, wt^re filed by appellant. Replications 
were filed denying the facts set out in each of the special pl^ as. 

The cause Wc^s heard by the court and a Jury, resulting in 
Terdict and Judgment in fafor of appellee, and a alnat appellant, 
in the sua of $217*B2, The appellant th reupon obtuined leave to 
f prospoute this appeal and as perfected same, thus brinf^ing the re- 
oord here for review. 

The substantial facts presented by this record are aa foiiows:- 
In the year IB97 the appellant engaged in a gamo of cards in the City 
of Keokuk, Iowa, c»nd lost Seventy-five dollars, and gave one Hewitt 
a check for the same on a bank ut Carthage, 111 in c> is. The check was 
not honored, and in • short time thereafter Mr, Howitt cams to Car- 
thage J. or the purpose of collecting this debt, sought out the appel- 
lant and threatened him with prosecution and exposure, unless the 

paid the oheok. App'.aiant and Mr. Hewitt went, together, to the 

meat market of appellee, and appellant introduced "^ , Hewitt to appoi 

lee and then relat'^d to him the v/hole transaction, ana asked appel- 
lee to take up the check for him and save him the disgrace of escpo- 
sure, and promised appellee h» would pay hln. i^vppellee took up ths 
oheok, and in a few ruonths time presented the #75, check and a meat 

'blll of 937*50 to appellant and rtquested paTment. Appellant aid 
not have the m^noy, and gave to appellsa his note for the sua of 
|112.50» dated April 22, I898, due in nlne^ months and drawing inter- 
est at the rate of seven per oentxwi per annum. Afterwards appellant 
Made three small payments o^ said nets, the a^te of the last paymtsnt 
teing August 22b, 1909* 

It is true that appellant does not agree that all of the above 
facts are true, but we aro of the opinion chat when all of the facts 
and ciroumstanc ■ are considered together, the above statom nt will 
bo found to be correct* 

A number of errors are asolgned as ground for the reversal of jc 
the Judgment, but In our view the whole case turns upon the ques* 
tion raleed by tho plea setting up that the note in question was 
given for a f^amliling debt* 

There is no contention in this case that the appelj.eo was 
present in Keokuk, Iowa, when the f^ambling took place, or that he 
was interested in any manner, directly or indirectly therein, but 
it is contenaed by appellant that appellee bought the check in 
qu stion froB L'r* Hewitt, and by reueon thereof, cannot recover in 
this suit* 

Ve cannot agree with appellant in this view of the case. All 
of the facts and circumstanced, upon this question, lead us to the 
concluBion that appellant sour^ht and received assistance in his hour 
of trm\ble from his old friend, the appellee, and that appellee too 
up the check and carried it and a meat bill for ♦37»50 for months, 
at the re'^ues* of the appellant, and that then appellant adjusted 
both accounts by giving the notexUmc in question* 

The several puyxaents made by appellant, cl arly takes the note 
out of the effect of the statute of limitations • 

We do not find any reversible error in this record, and the 
Judgment is, therefore, affirmed* 

A P F I R M E D. 


! 1 







Clarence Swango.^ 


Ag»ncta No. 50- 

^^^ ^ ^^-/L^///^ 

T8. ; Appeal from Sdgar. 

Clereland^ C\lnoinnatl, Chioago ami 

8t« LoulB Hyi Co., 


184I.A. 207 

Opinion, Crei>.;h\on, J , / 

This wy a suit cummetfced in the Circuit Coiirt of E(%ar 
County by the appe! arainsy the appellant cor:.pany to recover dama 
ges from the appellijj||| became of Jdix injury to his horses* 

The declaration consists of three counts. In substance 
the first count alleges that the appellant's rail road passes throug"- 
the lands of the apt ellee, and that to enable appellee to pasa fron 
on^ point of his fazw to another oTer he right of way of the appel- 
lants xamA railroad, the appellant construoteri what is known as 
fam crossings and gate; that the appellee was pasturing ^it^t head 
if horses on the farm on one side of the railroad rifrht of way; 
that on the jjO^iuutf nif;ht of July 5t 1912, the gate in question, be- 
ing one of those erected by the appellant, was open, and the horses 
in question passed fron the pasturs onto the railroad truck of appel 
lant, and four of them were 1 killed liy the locomotiTS and train and 
three other* were badly injured; that appellant was negligent in not 
providing and maintaining suitable atnd sufficient fences and suit a* 
We and sufficient .rates to prevent the said horses from Roing upon 

L the ri^r,ht of way. 

' The second count , although in different lant^^uage, is in sub- 

stance substantially the same as the first. 

The thirj count ayers that appellant operated its locamotiye 
engine ad train of cars in a negiirent , careless and reckless man- 
n r, liy reason thereof, ran over appellee's horses '-Jhioh had xJoogc 

f strayed onto said right of wqr and railroad track, and killed four 


and injured three other of the eald horses, appellant nothavlng 
provided suitable and eufficient fences and fpOKM t> gates to pre- 
sent etockfrcm joing upon the trucks, as the law provides. 

The plea of the general issue vras filed, trial had before the 
court and a jury, resulting in a verdict and Judgment in favor of 
the jq aa wiJUb tappellne in the sum of #690* andsucosts of suit. ?roB 
this Judgment thisappeal was prayed and perfeoted, thus bringing the 
record before us for review. 

At the close of all the evidence the appellant asked the --ourt 
to give a prsreraptorjr instruct ioa directing the Jury to find for Lhe 
appellant, but this court refused, and this action of the court is 
assigned^ior error. 

The material facts in this ca^e are that the appellee was the 

owner of a oertato tract of land used and occupied by him as a farm. 

Appellants railroad sxm ran through said tract of xx land. On the 

1st. or sc#ond day of July, 1912, the appellee turned eight head of 

horses in a pasture, on his fara, which lay adjoining the ri^ht of w 

way of the railroad . A farm crossing and gates had been erected 

by the appellant about five years prior th- reto, ana which gate was 

made of f^ood material, of eufficient height unci what is known as a 

"sliding gate* and was conceded to be sufficient, with the exception 

t|tat what Is called the "hinge" end of said gate was several inches- 

lower than the other end. Bile gate was fastened by two slats or 

bars extend ins o^t about one foot beyond the end of the gate and 

rested upon cleats naile<i betwc(='n two posts, so that, before the 

gate could be op'^ned it was necessary to slide it back off of these 

cleats about one foot. On the day that appelieo put his horses in 

the pasturs, he further secured this gate by ?: tting a very heavy 

piece of timber r/hich he found by the ri ht of v/ay^ ^rid placed it 

through the slats of said gate to more securely fasten the same. 

On the nif'ht of the 5th of July, 1912, the gate was opened in some 

mann*?r not disclosed by the evinence, and the horses in question 

passed onto the right o- way ana four of them killed and three in- 


The S'^otlon men of appellant had ijaesod over tVie track at this 
point on a tour of inspection on the morning of the >th of July, and 
it is clear from their Btatom^'nta that the gate was, at that time ^ 
in its usual closed condition. In fact, for five years the gate had 
stood there and had never been seen open so far as this record dis** 

The only question raised by the evidence in this case is as to 
the negligf^noe of appellant in failing to cons' ruct cmd maintain a 
suitable and sufficient £;ate at the farm crossing in question. 
There ie no proof that appelltint negligently or recklessly handled 
its locomotive or train at the time of the accident* 

Before appellee couH xs^nnot recover in this case, he must prove 
by a preponderance of the evidence that "by reason of the neglig noe 
of the appellant the gate in question was not reasonably sufficient 
and suitable to turn stock. It is not enough that appellee should 
prove that in some manner or by some means unknoim to him, the ^ate 
at the time in question was opened and his horses permitted to enter 
upon the railroad right of way and be there killed. 

It is contended, however, that the gate, at what is .called Jddnt 
the "hinge* end was lower than il was at the other, and that the ef- 
fect of th'^^- T/ind, or the rubVing of the horses ar^ainat the 'rato, 
might slidesaxx3UuuuDc or press it backward £md press it open ahd ad- 
mit the stock onto the right of wi^r. 

We concede that this micht be possible, but under all of the cir 
oumatanoes in this case it was highly improbable. It will be remem- 
bered that the eviaence in this record shows that this gate had been 
standing and doing service Tor the period of five years, ¥?ithout 
ever having b:^en blown open by the v/ind or j ressed open by stock. 

On the occasion in question the strength and s ourity of the 
gate was reinforced by the appellee placing on the front end of the 
gate a long and heavy plank, fmd inter J,pck ing it between the barlt^of 
thsB c&te. Te describe this board or plank in the language of the ap- 
pellee, "it was a very heavy plank, it was almost as much as I could 


It was admitted "by appellee upon the witness atond that the gate 
was of the usual pattern of sliding gates and that It was imde of 
good material and of sufficient height and that at the time In ques- 
tion It was In a good state of repair and preservation* The only 
objection offered to the mujiner of the construotlsa of ths gate or 
the material out of which It was construotsd , was that the "hinge" 
end was olfrht or nine inohes lower down, than the other nnd, and that 
this would hare the ef£ ct to make It easier to slide %aok. Ap- 
pellee stated as a witness, on the trial of the cause, that he was 
out until 10 o'clock on the nir^ht of the eusoldent, and that he did 
"not think the wind was blowing, and If so to no considerable ex- 

The evidence In this record fails to show that horses had been 
standing, stamping or rubhlng against the gate on the night in ques- 
tion, so w" may say there Is absolutely no proof in this record in 
support of either theory jf the prosecution, 1. e, , that t>^^ wind 
may have blown the gate open, or that the hors^^s may have rubbed 
it open, but, to the contrary, the wind did not blow to any "con- 
siderable extent" on the nii^ht in ijuestlon, and n ither was there 
disclosed any evidence of the rubbing by the horses against the ^ate, 
or proof of footprints *vhere the horses had stood and stamped at the 
gate as though they were in aa effort to prese it open. 

In this case wo are asked to say that the appellant has been 
ns ligent either in the construction or maintenance of the gate in 
qU' stlon nd that by reason of that fact, either the wind blew the 
gate open or that the horses ygmnrthc pressed it open. We are unable 
to conclude that the evidence in this record is sufficient to show 
any negligence on the part of the appellant. It is more reasonable 

to suppose that eoino person passing through said gate left it open, 
than to suprose the horses pressed the gate open or the wind blev? it 
open, and yet, there la no loot evidence to auj^ ort that theory. 
The most that can b»j said from the proof in this oase is, that the 


gate was open and the horaea paased through to the ri.-^ht of sjc way 
and track and were killed and Injured. There la no fact or oir- 
ounateunce shown by thla record that glyea the court any infonnation 
a8 to how the gate did come ppen« 

Tho evidence in thla record ia not euf fie lent to emptor t the 
judgment rendered herein* The court ahouldharc given the p«-reaip~ 
tory instruction aa aaked by appellant. 

For the reason herein stated the judgment la reT<^r8ed« 

Finding of faot: We find the appellant was not guilty of the 
negligence charged in the declaration* 








' Rehearing No, 5^" 
Gen. Wo, 55" 

October Term, ^912- Agenda ITo . 23- 
Piled Oct. l6| 1913- 


J.J.Sll^v/orth and Ha^ry IIcBair, | 

partneri, doing iDualneBB under„the | 
firm nam^of* Bllsvbrth and MoNair., | 

William Pidlc, 

Louii Heilbrunn aad Da'fid Kahnf ^a /I 
HiLil"briinn and Ks^n., '^ *' 

Intervanljag -^3aaiftti|X ♦pT — ■ 


\t cJL. 

J, J, Ellsworth aadtKarry M( 


184I.A. 223 

' Appellee ■- 


Appeal f OB Mattoon City Court, 

Philbrick, J,- 

Sllsworlih and McITair brought an attachment suit aga- 
inst one William ?inlc, levying upon the property in question. 
Heilbrunn and Kahn, claiming the property levied on was not the prop 
•rty of William 5'ink but the property of Heilbrunn and Kalin, riled 
an intervening petition in thi attachment suit. Ellsworth and Mo- 
Hair filed pleas to the intervening petition by appellants, to 
these pleas Heilbrunn and Kalin demurred, the demurrer wcs over ul- 
td by the trial court and appellants havintietsAitdfenxx eledt**4 
to stand by their aemurrer, jucV^ment was rendered on the de^wrrer 
against appellants for costs. Heilbrunn and Kahn appeal from that 

The case was first submitted to this court and pp- 

Inion written affirming the Jud(':ment because no assignment of 

tr-rors had been made upon or attached to the record under the 

rules of xktssanudc this court. Appellants filed a motion to set 

aside the judrTaent and for leare to assign errors, or in the alter- 

aatlve,a petition for rehearing. In passing upon this twi*ir-Hnt »©- 

tion, the mamk set aside 



lt» Jud^raont affircilnf- he ouuso and granted appolionts loav* to 

asaiga errors up<m the rooord* The oauM waa then a^-aln Bubmitted 

to thia courts and now upon oxonilnatlon of the reoord| wo find that 

the only Judfjnent rendered ty the trial court is a Jud^nent on the 

dejBurrer for ooatt* The o la no judcraent finding that the property 

waa the Property of the defendant in the attachment, Pink, nor is 

there any juocraent that appellants are not the ownera of or entitled 
to the property sho'/n by the rocord, and under the holding of the • 
oourftsof appeaXin j^dM this state,, the juc^^nent for ooats is not a 
final jucicBif'nt. 

C}il. P. Co, V, Crayon Co., 217 Ill«» 200. 

Although tho question tliat no final Jiidrjuient w;-.a rendered 
in tlie lowor court has not heen raised by coimseX sol and althouf^ 
they have submitted the c:auae t}ie ac-ane as though a final jud/^ment 
had been rendered, tho question is .jurisdAo clonal with this oourt 
and an appeal from an interlocutory jua^^jiaent, such as a Jud<;iaent for 
costQ alone has repeatedly be n ]ield to be, this court obtains no 
Jurisdiction by reaswi of tlie apjjoal, the appeal is, therefore, 
diamiseod v/ith pormlaaion to oither party to withdraw the rocord 
and make application to the trial court for a final judgment. 




^^' ^ 

§1 -c 

Gen. No, 52- Oot. Term, 1912- / Agend* No . da- 

Piled Oct. 16,/ 1915- 
Sxelcial Edward 8^ t >JA^ 



Blijah Stter., 

Appelleo « 

Appeal fntom. Morgan. 

184I.A. 239 

Fhilbrick, J.- 

Appellant omiipd a taxreJot one hundred thirty acres 
near Modssto, Ilxlnols. App^lee, 11^0 is a real estate dealer in 
Morgan County, brought this ac\ioa?^to recover a coLn-nission alleged 
to be due hia for services rendered in procuring a purchaser Tor the 
farm of appellant. The trial below resulted in a Judgment in favor 
of appollee for Two hundred seventy dollars* 

Huaeroua errors are assigned on the record urging a 
revf^rsal of thia cause, but froia the view that this court has arri- 
ved at it will bo neoeesary to consider only one of the errors as- 

The first meeting of the parties relating to this 
cause of action occurred at a casual meeting of appellant and appel- 
lee at a railroad station at Waver ly, Morgan Qounty, Illinois. 

Appellee contends that at that tim-d appellant placed 
this farm of one hundred thirty acres in his hands for sale, and a- 
greed to j-ive him a coraalesion of two per cunt if he sold the farm 
at !Tin«ty Dollars per acre, and to allow him as further cumniissioa 
all that he could get over ^rlnety Dollars p'^r acre. Ho purchaser 
is claimed to have ever been found at thia figure, and appellee' tes- 
tified that JckK the price was after'.vards raised from Ninety Dollars 
at various times until it reached the jrioe of One Hundred Twenty SSc 
Dollars per acre, and appellee produces in evidence a "book k«spt by 
him in his office in which he made a memorandum of the conditions 
on which the farm was to be sold« 


Thia meraoranciuB showa ihat ho was required to find :<. buyer at One 
Hundred Twenty Dollar* per acre, for which he was to receive two 
pr>r cent oommlssion, and was to reoeire as extra oommla Ion all that 
h<^ ooxild net oyer One Hundred Twenty Dollars per acre. After this 
tlsK! nothing was heard from appellee until the fury had heen eold 
by appellant; aftnr appellse discovered that the farm had been sold, 
IduDt he then made a demand upon appellant for his o nunission of two 
per cent on One Hundred Fire Dollars per acre, the price for vhioh 
appellant sold the farm* 

The declfltratlon consists of the cor.mon counts and one special 
count. Appellee stated at the trial that he relied alone upbn the 
special count for a recoTery, <»nd that all ha would claim under the 
comr:ion counts v^rould be for interest. The special count \xpon which ap 
pellee relies for recoyery alleges that the land was placed in his 
hands for sale at One Hundred Twenty Dollars jar acre, and that If 
he secured a purchaser for 0:.e liundred Twenty dollars per acre he 
WHS to receive two per cent conuniselon on the sale; the ueclaration 
then avers that he procured a buyer &n accordance with the terms and 
conditioj^s of of the contract, and that to the buyer, so f- ound and 
produced to appej.ant by appellee, appellant sold the farm for One 
Hundred Five Dollars per acre. The evidence in this case disclos- 
es that appellee learned that one Ihitlook, who afterwards contract 
ed to purchase this farm from appellant, was in the meorket for the 
purchaee of a farai, appellee then endeavored to sell to Whitlook a 
farm whioh appellee himself owned, an failing in this, he then in- 
formed Ihitlook that h« :ad appellant* s farm fo sale at One hun- 
dred Twen y-five dollarspor acre. Whitlook told him the farm was 
priced too high, and that he woula not even look at It; but appellee 
requested Whitlook to jc;o with lilm to see the farm* Vhitlock declined 
said he knew where the farm was and could drive by it on his way 
home that evening. So far aa this record discloses, appellee had 
n thing further to do with the sale of this t&rm^ -^ he never 
brought appellant and Whitlook tor^ether and never informed appellant 

that he ever had a prospective purchaser for the farm. Ho never 



priced the farm to IThitlook at the price he eays he was authorized 
to aell it. 

About two years after this transaction one John Edwards att mpt 
ed to interest IThitlook in the purchase of this farm, induced him 
to go and look at it, and upon the representation made by ^lawa ds. 
fhitlock requested him to ascortaia at what price the farm coxild be 
purchased from appellant; and as a result of the negotiations be- 
tween Edwards and Vhitlook, Vhitlock purchased the farm from appel- 
lant at the price of One Hundred Fire l)ollars p^r acre. There is no 
contention by appellee that he erer Informed ppellant Whitlook 
was a prospective buyer or that the farm was sold to Vhitlock by ap 
pellant at a less price than One Mundred Twenty Dollars per acre with 
any intention or purpose of depriving appellee of a ooniriission. The 
declaration alleges that appellees found a bttyer at the price a- 
greed upon. One Hundred THwnty Dollars per acre, and does not in 
any nianner set forth how or in what manner appellee became entitled 
to a oonmiasion on the sale atOne Hundred Five rollars p«r aero; 
which the declaration alleges the farm was finally barr:ained to be 
sold at. The evidenoe not only fails to support the contention and 
claim mads by appellee but shows conclusively that h': did nothing 
•whatever to ^ ing about this sale, did nothing which resulted in any 
way in procuring a purchaser for this farm. The w sale was never con 
sur^riated, ^itlock declining to tjJcs* the farm on account of a de- 
fect in nhe title to ten acres. 

Ts pomit a recovery in this oass would require us to hold that 
after a farm was once placed by the owner in the hands of a real 
estate dealer for sale, the ovmer will bn required to pay a com- 
mission if after that time the owner sold the land. To onlitle^ the 
broker to a conanission he must b-:? the efficient cause in either 
affecting a sale or in finding a buyer who is rsady, ^^iliing and 
able to buy at the stipulated price or to k whom the ovmer afterwards 

TVie verdict of the Jury is clearly and nanifestly contrary 
to the evidence, and the judf^ment is therefore r- v rsed. 


Th, 01.r)c,ili ,„t.r in th. Ju<.« In thU court th, find In, that 
.pp.11.. «. „,t th. .rricient or proourlng oau.e m ..curing a 
puroha,.r for th. far». and took „o part therein. 

Judgmsnt ReT.r»ej, 





<('//f ^y^ 


Cren* Ho« 6l. 

ike- >3^ f9l^^ , 

Oct. Term, 1912- 
I-iled Oot^ 16, 19/3- 

Agenda Ko, 47- 

Plora Oliver, 



The [First national Bank of 

Mt. Olive., 1 
Appellee- \ 

\ Appeal from U ooupin County 

184I.A. 247 

Hiilbrick, J,- 

Appellee\ the Ij'lrst National Bank of Mt, Olive, com- n^ 
menced an action in attao ment against one LaxLange for an alleged-^ 
indehtednesB Al on tvfo promissory notes, A writ of attaclment was 
issued and levy made "hy the Sheriff of Macoupin County upon a cer- 
tificate of stock of the face \ialus of Seven Hundred Dollars, issu- 
ed by the Stailnton Home Association of Stalnton, Illinois. After 
the leiy of the attachment upon this certificate of stock, appellant. 
Flora Oliver, gave notice to the Sheriff that she wr.s the o-.mer of 
the said certificate of stock, claiming the same as her own property, 
that it was not the propeity of Max Lang, and deaan ed the return 
of her property. Under the statute in such cases, the Sheriff 
made due return to the County Court as protided by law, and proper 
notices were given to the parties interested, and tliis case came 
to trial in the County Court upon a trial of the rif:hts of property 
under the statute. The case was tried before the County Judge of 
Macoupin county without the intervention of a jury, the jury having 
been waived by the parties by a{;reement. After hearinc all the evl 
denoe and the arguments < f counsel the County court found the issues 
in fav'br 0- ^h® de f endant , t AidJ t a^ finding that the claimant was not 
the owner of the certificate of stock, and had no interest therein. 
The findings of he court were excepted to and appeal prayed to this 
court. The errors assigned upon tho record are that the Court erred 
in binding the issues for the defendant and rendering judgment aga?» 
Inst the claimant, that the findi'^g is manifestly contrary to the law 
and the evidence. 


Heither the claimant nor the defendant presented to the Court 
to "be ruled thereon by him any questionB of either fact or lawj and 
under repeated holding* of the Supreme Court and this court, ^^here 
a trial is had "before the court without the intervention of a jury 
where the record disoloaas that the only quest ion to "be determined 
is a question of fact and no propositions of m law or fact have 
"been submitted to the court to be pH.sasd upon by it, there is noth- 
ing preserved in the r oord for the determination of this court. 

So questions having: been preserved as required to bring th« 
questions in disputs before this court for its determination, there 
is nothing for this court to cietermlns, and the judgment is affirme* 

A 7 7 I R H!fE: D • 












W (1 

* '^ October ^crn, i ...191:. , 


va* } A ;«al fron i?a3i#«ll« 

2he i^on- Inontal Caaualty , a ^ ^ . ^ ,^ 

CompBiiy ( IncoroomtoiO ) /X O *± x .n.. /^ ^ «Lf 


A pell ant, ) 

iTillbrlok, J, 1 

?hla la an ootion brou^'lif by a, i olloo Q^'^-alii»t 

api«llant to rooo\©r upon an aoolclenf lOlloy ia«ued V)y the aptjellant 

\ / 

ooajai^ to &ivpollo^3 » u ibariA in hi/ life tln», Tbe Injured wao 

a flagman upon a rri!b*o 'd oroo 'Ir^ In t>'o city or olrln. xhc 

polioy •.7B3 for the pru^i ^al sxi^o ' - Ive I'unarod Doll'rn, an«l wo 

paQTRblo only ior aooifTontM«ik6Qt^ cwinaed by external and Tlolcnt 

ic •. v/lthout the Intcrrontlo:, Iroctly or iivUroofcly, of any 

other oauae* On tho day on wMoh thr Imured mat hla oj t he .cnt 

to v.'Oiic as u.-ual In tho Pioniln;', qs\:\ returno hoQO aftt - i ^n'a 

s7orl: wnn finished at cihout 6;15 p«n. axid \7aa la hia uaiial hcrvltli, 

He ato a henrty suppoi*, th<n .;erU. acron:- thr lot on the r. '."Oix-rty 

-"-ore '-^G live; to a clo:^et, upon atortlnr to r^'tum to the hriiyo 

after vijlt^nc the clonot, at about ':\fr tlrnc Tie v,'aJ3 lotiVlrs^'' the 

olOBot, ho .«a aeon ^y t-??o i»r30.a to f'll forv/artl, ??.i3 ohoat 

str-uck o©df:.r ;>oot Xyln- ^croon or ner.r thf? ; ath lo din;'- to fcho 

clo:3Ct* 'iJhe portioa v;ho aa^-v hln fall v.ont :o his ari 1 ..t' itc©, ••ickf-fi 

hL'n up, and or,r led hi.i to tho houao, l;-id hin upon a . lllov? on ttw^ 

;:'Oroh» \7);iilc lyiii^ there he roca^nlt^od hir; wlfte, hut Ud xiot Oi-e&k:; 

shortly ci^ftor ho ^m placed on the porch hlood bc^rm flo Inp froa 

hi3 u^outM Slid nootrila and nv de ciuite a ^ool upoa tho floor of the 

poreh; Dr. 'irtimrjcr who -am- ci^-llod nrrlvcl about seven :>• n, t-ut ho 

in-!urod m;3 dead vrlien h-- rrivod, -oofn of ^oao ii^rr ti^do hy 

appelloo uaaor the t^.Tm of i;he :olicy, a:.^rcll--tfit ref'.>»ea t.o r.&y; 

thin Qotion r H Vrc>i7:;-ht upon tho policy, niKl a ^-ajriTcnt rf?..ovorod 

apninot appollE::it» 


A r^clln'nt In .i3;;a thgit it I0 not liable oliil inr that ttic 
appllos'ittoa for tho policy f»f inniirrnc© la a pnrt of the oontrriot 
of Injuranoe and that all rGi>roaontatlonfl In the appllc tlon vi-crc 
nifide xrarTBntleo, thnt the Ins^urad ftaw hln Bre at the tine of the 
anplloation arj flfty-olx ojkI contend I up- thot hi a tra© a,-© at tivt 
tlajG tma -Ixty-flvo years, and th t t' lo ro; roaontatlon thr.t he 
vrar? flfty-alx v,T-a falao, was a riatorl" 1 rc.iro '©ntatlan and '.«irr!inty 
and that by roaaon thereof th© policy Ir? voltl, Appellrnt alao 
lailot« thi't the R|?T©enioftt to pay thla volley wea only ^lade upon 
the oondltl:n thf t the death h^ or.nffel hy fxooi loi^tal, violent and 
oxtcrsml mmum, v/lthmit the Intervention, cUreotly or inllrootly, 
of any other oauae ajid In-lf^to thet the Immured .ma auffcrlnf^ - Ith 
n.-t<»rlal aclrroois for a mmhor of year?5 prior to the tine of the 
issusnoe of the policy, and th:'t M3 deeth ^an iKmaad hy »r©aoon 
of the hur'tln" of an artery in the lunp rolnela^e a hemorrhage 
i^ieh oangefl hio death, miA that the huristlnp of thla «rterj* '.ma 
oatvjed >)y reason of the aiaoaaci, artprlnl soloro tii^, thet tiho fall 
was not aufflclont to haw o?;i«3©^ derth oxo©pl; for the weel^ned 
-condition of the arterlog anufjod by thf? dlaearj©; apr^ollf^nt also 
ooatendii th t tho oourt t^-red In tho ad.nlBrjlon vM r<-*;fftotlcn of. 
evl'icnc© and the flvln^ of in ^ tract I'.^nn on hohalf of appclloc 
rai^ TGfir;^in^. Initructi-mo aakod hy aT;pol1i?mt« 

After !^'rtalttln:- the poliv-y la <mo^tlOii to in.mred 
oontlrmod n .;>o:ih©r of the order in f'-ooil ata'dln^ r.M , aid til 
(inea ana. a^iae3;-?r»nta tharoor.. >nie :oolicy vn\B li^i^v.ed Anril 20, 1910 
^m6t the ln;:^ixr©'l died Aivnitit ;.?, 1910. 

Tre evlrlonoe is rmdisputed t>rit «'he deoeaoed fell 
and "true?: hi^i C'^ost ur^on the oedc.r -^o^t, and as a reanlt thoro 
v'lB a hlGck and hluo ;mrV aeroas the ci'-.oat QOim t^ tno Inoho3 or 
rx>re in ';?idth, ?he r^oor'' 'oen net aisoloae r/^mt ©a ised t'le 
dGoea3«A to fall, and appellant contend- t^.f^ artery ney have 


hoan ruptured v<>fon> tho f«ll , nd that tho doceaao^i roay have 

illen hy retzoon thereof. About fifteen niaat.ea after th© fall 
1 1© hcraorrhar-e of the lna°o wno obcsenreft ana this hmaorrha o ctiuaod 
t'lo (Jofith» UTilie It In ahovm hy tho oYlionoe that ertcrlaX 
3oloroc5lQ will w>«>ea the nrtorleo of q era on, fchoro la no ©virtonoe 
In this rooord to 3h<w tr^at the dlooaso, althoU(fl1i t;>»o Animrod fisy 
)iaTo been aufferln'r therewith, ot>uned or pi-oduoed hia death or 
fiontribuUed In ai^ .^oy thereto; vftiiXt^ thlo dlae&ne haa a toiido oy 
1 ■•^ea'rer. the arteries and to Ofaiae thoia to bunt by r^ col dents whi<^, 
ould not Oi^^tiae tho buritiap of a henlthy artery, th»iro la nothing 
i thl^ rooord to ohov? tJiat tho fall v/hldh the Inmirod reoeivcd 
a tho roroe rlth t<jhioh he ofiine In oontciot vdth the pot^t vjaa not 
ffiolfnt t;o h^YO ota:i0e<l a healt^^y artery to burot. MiA tho re«ord 
aoea not dlnolo-je that erteriel eoleroaia, *)lthoufrh the Inirared ay 
ive heon tifferlxir with it, la rniy V7a:", contributed to hh^ defth. 
d the RVli^enoe In t^U rcoorfl ehcr/lnc that the in. ared foil 
!;rlkinp!r Ula oheat ooros) the o t, i,T*vloh ai^oduoed blaok siid blue 
ri.B of tv.'o or t^roc inv.:h«a hi v.-ldtb fio."03« hi:\ oTioat and thr lYct 
timt he illod Vy reason of a fiulmonary hersorrha e nbout flitoon 
'.jmuo:?- I'rtor \nxa suffldoat to o.rrant the j'^-y In finiin-o' caid 
t^imlnr' a verdlot t'v t the InnireA o^-yti to hli; i.^oath by re aon 
of aooi ?ont('.l, exte'^nal mrl violont r^aao, xmannl.-.'itod o;/ Im'rKJOd 
v-i^'octly or ln<i iroofly hy any other cnurje. 

Tho ooroiirr of iftsor/oll oount;i,' held fiii in Que 't on 
■e ho^iy of tho doorfi-:)od, 'm&. f^ao ^nr^ l.'.'!:-nnoled 3fota?n©u tho 
i' vortUot: 

"Ite,, t:-^'® '.mrterai nod JT?-'ors •'fwOr?* to liw.uiro into 
the death of Jart^es vim F:')!ei);lin, on ont;-' ^'o fi.a<l, t'ljit he cavrio 
: hV:> 'lest'-f by a oulraonr.ry he;norrha, -o, oalA "hecaorrha.-e hfiliig 
QtviBOi) by nntural 0':?iiBO8*'* 

?hl3 verdict ?»?■■;« inti'oOtioed In f'VMonoe by 3t)fcll€(,nt 

vor to object I Diia of ax^pcllec. l*hf' \'-erdlct of the coroner* o 
jury h-aving been admitt-ed in- evidence ti»8- court llmite-d^ the- 


Inntructl iM olltnlnated fro th<? oojisl"©r?vtloa of the ^ury the 
, flndlaf? that tho nulinonnry hcmorrhar-e vroa ro^uoed hy nr.turol 
oanao?, and appellant Insiato tht the court erred in t>m« li'?iitin^ 
the verdlot of tho ooronor^n jury, and InoiJta thrt It should have 

o«n subciitted to the Jury together Ith tho other cvi'^enoe In the 

)s»oe -.rlthout a-Tjr llcilttitlnn by Iwitruotlono. ?he> vcrdlot of the 
-;oroner*a ;Jury was j^roj^rly .'idi Itteft in ovl'lenoe by the ooiirt, and 
'/c think properly United Ijr the inatruotlona o th« court, rho 

rovlac© of the ooroner*a Jury waa to rot rn a vcrdlot fliidljif the 
ociune of tho dooth, vjhloh tlioy oror-erly aid in aet©rr:>inLniT that 
the deoth weo omised by a polraontsry homori'hofro, but we are of the 
oolnlon thftt when the Jui^ undertook to detcrflrw whether or aot 
; l8 hemorrhage vn9 pw><hiced by nstuml or unw taral cauaea they 

receded the powers conforrod uon thofs by law, 

Calloway v. ^..^urfToon, :I3 Ill«App» 571, 
',» , & .:• • Hy,wo« v.*Gylor, 45 111. A;,.. y06# 
Ap.icllttnt filen n aT^eolr-l oIbr setting- an that ifVsnkllu in 

13 ap5'llo'.tion for Insjurs^nce re 'resented hl3 a^ o an flfty-nix 
yoarn, and ff^it tht"-. appllc- tl'>n vf a nmdo a rcrfc of the contraot 
of inrmiTnoe by ->ro"er rcfor<i;ico t^^f-ret'i In tho ;>olicy, thcit this 
ret-rorjeatotlon vjr.n Knde a .mrrir^ity under the tcrna of t'le rol'.cy, 
at said rt ^roeentction •;7ra TaLkj and th;\t Ihti r^'^c of --ranviin 

V5 oixty-five yosira, etid not fifty--? lie. Tito iGfi then -vern that 
. :© ijiaured ad dtted thurt tMs v?rva a ■ .atcrlal imttor. <^o t--.i3 
. plon ap''f>llec "Hod a re;.llcf.itloji dojiyin- "M-it the a o ^tiq iatei-iol 
or in (Mij wTiy ln-ror.3ed the rial: of lnnura;;ce. A do ai ror to tr.ia 
ro^aictitlon w€^ ovomae'. and apf«lle-t laoiats that the c;orjrt 

rro'^ 1.1 ovcrralii^'^'; thl;; d©:mrror. 'H^jla re.liuatlou iienieii the 
q.'e-^ttnn of the materiality of the. &©• Tm- oa.ia© weti tried .^Ith 
thla l93-vie involved, f i.d '© do not f Lid 1; thia record tiny f^vllonoe 


v'hatevor to aupport the ploa that the reproaentatloji of the 
deoeasod as to hlj ap» xm& ft^ae* ?ho harden of nrovin^ this 
la3tto ti7a« upon appellant and v/lthout harlijp rtrodiiced ar^r ovldanoc 
or attomntln*" to prove thfj sg-© of the Injured, filthou -h the court 
roay have erred In ovormlliir tho deraurrer on t'Ufs record, apiellaat 
has not boon in,')ared thereby* 

It Is Ins lilted by appellant that the coart orvsd In 
TotvLQiAc to direot a verdiot at the olo^io of plaintiff *a oviacnoo. 
Ve oro ofttlofie<t that the oourt did not err in denyinr thlo notion 
and rofiioinir the Inntruotlon* *ho ovl.lonoo o fcired hy plaintiff 
showln^T that the Imnired fell, ctr lie Lng hto oheat upon the poet 
and that v?lthin a abort tine tTjereufter, blood begran to f lo - from 
hia aouth and noatrllo fa r i-ecult or a ^rhar.':© of tho lun?'a, 
shoved niich n oonaitlon cr? to reqiilr© the ooiirt to aubnlt to a 
turs the queation iXi to ho .- aiid In v/hat ninnrier tho Imnrod ::ot 
hi3 decith, 

Afpellant oritit-il^rea In-^triiotlona '■nrabor Klpht and 
riuffiber :Un« '-"Ivon to tho ^iivj on behalf of appelloo, insist liv- that 
theae ia;tructioj'ia roqulred that in o.-dor to .tefcat a re on?er^- tho 
dof«^n(lRnt ahoaSld prove by a ircponiloranoo of tho rvifierico in tho 
caoe thf't tho doooaeed canic to hi. 5 dor th by rcuaon of naturr.-! 
Cfiuoeo. Wo do not ao infcorrrt th^jao in. traotlo-cKj • 2'« in;!!, -acti.^iis 
munt be ccv/. 'l.-ored arj a r/hole. To.e loas, topotv.or v.lth tho 
doclarution, rrcBentol to the ,1u..y tho qnoBtion aa to v/hothor O'^ iiot 
tho doooasol cario to hir, a©rit1i by roaf^on f an aeclOent oi' fron 
natural o?-uooo. illiilc t'^c btirdon of proof 1:^ on tho plaintiff to 
ohov; by a prO|>oM<^raiK>e of all the oviMCoice in tho OB..-e that tho 
•joceaoed .tuio to hi'i dc: th tis <'.vcrred in tho doolr rfttian by re^sion 
of nocidej-ital, pxterjial. ?>r.d violent 'ne^-ns, lMo:<'>idOi!itly 0.;' all 
othfir 0RU3011 , tho pl.<».lntlff havlii;? raM© a pxlna faoio c;.bo by 

her OTlfloaoo, th^ hurden t ■ on foil upon the defejidnnt to robut tMa 
prlci^ tfrcio Cf ao, cud one of the defonsea was that the dooeaood 
met hli death by natural oauoei), and hnyln^^ pro ttioeti a ifrl^aa f^^ oie 
OS ae, the burden then wao upon the defc/Tdent to jooot thl3 prlraa 
facie oaae In aooord nrje xvlth the avoi'menta of theae plo a. 
7heoe ln;tr.>otlon» 'lu-iibor v:ight end nino referred 3olfl;sr to tho.^o 
i'lcao a;id to the quontlon i*cthor death ttro o uaed by natural 
cauaea aa averred In these pleao. There wao no error coa ;ltt©d 
In Cfivirv thetjo Inntructlono ♦ 

;ve have exadned the quentlons v^laaA by appellant 
Uijon the Qdni.aalon and rojootlon of ovidciiae and nlao ur-on t.he 
Q-iieotlon of fivlnr ^^nd refusing of other JUa»tj*uotl rsa, and we 
are satisfied that the court co£a::ltted no rcvoraible errot* therein; 
and we do not o m^iflcr it nf>oe9aary to ftxrther rSiacu js the queotlori 
r&iaed upon thin record. 

Ihere bclnr »o roveraiblo error, the Judf?:.ierit 
of thr trial, court in afflnaed. 



i i«aw ^» ..lli< »n 



^ Oon, llo. Bl. 

Andrew J. Hiller,, 


October To:tji, 19] 

PlXed Oct. ir., 14L3- A^ // 

AssuTftdA^ national liutual 

Pire Insu^anoo Co!!ii)any,j 
of Docatur. Illinois .^ 
a corporation*! 



Acenda ITo, 5^- 

1 from IT , con. 

184I.A. 2?1 

P)iilbriok, J,- 

Thla is an action by appollee uc .Inet app^llimt upon a 
policy of insurance, °^" p-^'^j '. " ii •» "'^ imn <^^°"-"°'< ^ n jn"**!- 

~"Y pf i II III! 11^^ The property of ai^pellee was insured 4i policy 

i iesued by the Illinoi» Hatlonal j?ire Insurance Coiipaayj while this 

policy WRO still In force, :he Illlnoio National Pire Insurance Cora- 
t jKixgr pasaad into the haniB of i% receiver, ..ppellant coinpany entered 
into an atreem^nt to reinsure the riaks of the Illinuis National Fire 
Inouranco CoinptiMgr, obtained a liat of the lolicy holdors of Uiat com 
pony and forv/arded to them a at .toment of the conditiona under 'rhich 
■ they v'ould re-inoure theae riaka. Th^^ae cond .iona required the 
; policy holder to caaicn to appellant vrhatever claim he might have 
.inat the Illinois national Pire Insurance OoriiJany for unettmed 
prenium ;uid po;y the balance in cash, cmd u];on nukine this aaeiGnnent 

1 pc-yraont of the difference in the premium appolljint comp^my =tp:reed 
to re-insure three riska, 

( This i3 t}ie 8'-;Oond appeal of thia case to this court, upon 
-^ fomor appeal the judf^nent of tlie trial court waa reypBedd tnd 
the cause remanded, rhe forarr opinion was v/ritten by Ur, Ji'stice 

I*utr;rbaugh» and the i' ^cts vjce fully st-ited in the 



'found in 164 Ill.i App.t 237, J Ti^e facts concern inft the Issuine 
jfli ol' tJ-iia policy are the some in tliie record as tliey were at the 
tin?* the fomor opinion was v^rritten. This court thr^n hold that the 
■mspondence had conoerniilg the policj'- of insurance created a 


contr ot between t:;o inmirod joid tlie appellant co. ipaj^jr, and this b»: 
court l8 noty bound by th» law as stated In that op nloni > nd also 
by the tc.otu rfhich were then fotmd so far as the evidence is 'Jic some 
In this rooord. This court at tliat tins jMissed uvon the question *Joc 
then raii od oone«irning the conp-tenoy of the statonont* made by 
L.A»Millor, '-'ho appellant contends was the aeent of the insured after 
the Issuanos or the polAoys v/e then hold thise statncif-ntd Inoumpoten^ 
and vre are not tispoaad to disturl) that holding. 

T!io pleadin{;s aro the same uy^on this hearing ixn they v/ore at 
the time the case was proyiouily here, \ith tlin exception that 
defendant filed six additional pleas before tlie a cond t ial, A de» 
nxurrnr was sustained to tho firot, third, fourth and fifth additional 
pleaSp appellant Is ted to stand by its first, and tool: leave to 
a'-aend the third, fourth and fifth additional ]'leas. To these arienclod 
plnas the Court sustained a demirrer, Apiellee replied severally 
to the s-'cond ond sixth additional pleas^ issue was Joined thereon* 

There are but %wo questions presented in tlie argu; ent of appel- 
lant on this }iearing '/liich have not beon dotemined by th^ fomior 
JudfTncnt of l-lils court. These questions arc, first, upon the sus- 
taining of t;ie ^enurrf^r tf. t3i.o special pleas filed by appellant, 
and a>^g^ uyon the nilinc of the court JutmiijE in sustaining ob- 
j notions to the ovilonco offered tehding to impoach A.J.lTillcr, 
and L.A.Hill r, his son, who te«tifled to ^lavin,': nailed to rappsl- 
lant tlxe asaif^'iont of the claim against the receiver of the Ill- 
inois national Sire Insurance Corapany for tho unearned premium 
paid that ooiipany. Thnse pleas to vfhich deimirrers were sustained 

re all designated as pleas of a failure of consideration and pur- 
port tp be such upon t}ieir f aaeg! .oh of tliase pleas aver that the 
conoideration for the issuance of the policy was the acreement 
on the pjirt of plaintiff to assign to appf^llant his claim against 
he Illinois national 2x T^ire Insurance Compeny, Tliese pleas aver 
lie facta oonoerning t)ii8 agreement oiid inetead of averring that the 




conslderation failed "by reason of a failure of appellee to make the 
aealgninent, wer that he never had any mioh clalja and never had fil- 
ed a claiiB with the receiver, thus presenting to appellee as an 
iasiie on these pleas the question as to ^-Jhether or not he did file 
this claim ^dth the receiver, and not whether the claim , if he ever 
filed one or had one, was assicned to appellant, Thn failure of 
consideration alleged hy the pleas Is a failure to • a>:n ths assignzneit 
as agreed uponto appellant co ipanj, the question as to whrther he had 
such a claim aainst the receiver presented on irarru\.terial issue , 
If he had no such claim Ht tlien he owed to appellant the whole a- 
cunount of its promium. The court did not err in sustaining the deiaur 
er to these pleas. The plea does not in any iiegr aver that no as* 
sicnnent was made of the claim against the receiver, but that no 
clalra was ever filed with him, for return premium due him for the un- 
expired time on the policy v;hich he held in the Illinois national 
Fire Insurance Company, The plea avers that appellee hall agreed 

to tnalce tui assignment of the claim af:ainst the receiver, does not 
aver that he did not do it, does not aver r/hen it was to be inade, 
but leares the mtter as an executory contract, cuid although plain- 
tiff nay have failed to moke the assignment agreed on, vhich was 
alleged to be the considoration to appellant, this would not a- 
nount to a failure or" a consideration; it rfould, in effect, bo only 
a breach of a promise to perform. Conceding, however, that the 
demurrer was improperly sustained, appellant \ms permtttdid^ to 
introduce evidence upon the second trial v/}iich could only have 
"been proper und r the plea of a failure of consideration propr^rly 
pleaded, and }iavinn Jiad the benefit of this evidence uyon that 
question, it cannot now complain tJwX the demurrer was improperly 

Upon the nuestion of the impeaching evidence offered, appellant 
offered to impeach the dharacter of A,J,I!iller and his son for 
truth and veracity b3'- sho^/ing the reputation of t^iese vritnesses 
at a place rrhoro they had resided two years prior to the time of the 
e facts involved in this con rover fly. The Court lield tliat this 


vi enoe r/ae too remote, md sustained otjectlons to itj undrr the 
ruling in Kennedy ▼• M.V.A, , 24-3 111,, 56o., this iras error, but 
u} on a oarefUl consideration of this casA yjid from the ruling nade 
"by this court upon the fomer hearing, v;e hold that appellant wi'-s 
not prejudiced in any way by this ruling, m as tiie record discloses 
a oomplete oonstraot betwdvthe parities, a loss under the policy end 
ni^ other Judf^nent could properly bo mndorod In this case} tlM» Judg- 
ment is, therefo^^e, affirmed* 

A P F I R M !^ D. 







Oen, l<o, ^'3* 

Oct. ^' na, 491i^- 
FlXod OctJl6, 1913- 


Hi. Ko, 76- 

vs/ \ 

A,B,3)onni8., end OliveSt 
Morgan., \ 

Appellee 8 • \ 

184I.A. 272 

Aj/ppjal f^or. V'^rniiion* 

Pl-illbrick, J. 


This ia an actJi^oii ^ aaauiiipsit , brouf^ht by r-pp 1 lant 
aiTainst ripvelleos* The facts ci.8 averred in the plaintiff's dnclara- 
tion, second covnt, are, that on the 2Bth day of Octobor, 1903, 
W.l^.Ruaaell and 'Ife purchaaod fro:n appellee Uorean a ouee ^'.ad 
Itt in Hoopeston, subject to a iaort,ci;ace of One Thoueand Dolltjrfl, 
whioi) Raaaell ana vrife agreed to pay. 5h'? conaideration for 
the losep^ans purohae© wao Tvrnaty-five Jlimdred Bollnxs, 'in* secure 
part of t"ae piirohaea money a tiortgaea was executed to I'organ for 
■Pour Hv.ndr-5d Pifty Dollars, \vhLoh was duly recorded in Vermilion 
County v'here the property W8,8 loco-ted. After the exetjution of the 
mortca^^'' "by ^^'^'^ Pus ee 11b to Mor(]:aui, tlie Rusaelle then sold the prop- 
erty 3\/l->jeot to fho tr.'o mortgof-ee, on»'i beint: for One Thouatind Dol- 
lars which they hfld aaaumed, tlie other for the ?our Hundrod Pifty 
Dollar raortf^a^S wiioh aiey had given to Morgan. Th? Rua ella sold 
t}io proper^yll|g|j(pito one Clxarles E. LToran, and afterx/arda IToi'coi 
acid and triaiiBf erred the property to one Stevens, su.'b;Ject to tlxe 

tvTo riortejoges. The declaration tlxen avers tliat aftervrards Stevens 
sold the property to D-'nnis, nd D«nnis to one Carr, tlmt thf^ deed 
from D/snnia to Carr did not contain the ciauae assur.iing the nortgagiea. 
TJiat Horgun spld and trojisferred tlxe j'our Hundred :^"'ifty Dollt-.r note 
to one 3.C. IJalo, vtIio after^/ards put aaid note in judcnnnt a ainst 

Vie Kuasella v/lxo were the principalB tlierein, i-md tliat W.lil.Rusaell, 
one of tiie nakers , waa cojiipolled to ?wid did pay this note, jjtid 
that aft!;rv/arda T^saell brow^iit auit a^'ainst one L'oraa, who liad as« 


aiuiied tJie paynent of t'lis not« •'vhon he inirohaaed the property, md 
that Jfornn waa oorapellad to aiid did pay Hussoll the amount dua on li- 
the said note, That prior !io tha puynnnt of the aald said note to 
Russell hy :?(jraa, and after the purchase of the said hcueo "by tlie 
said Dennis, s.-ld Dennia dotianded and requested of I'crgan, the orig- 
inal payoe of the note, that he roleaee aaid :-ortf;af:G of record, cjid 
that the aaid Korgan did execute a release therefor, vhicli b id 
relf^aat Tas duly placed of record , and tlvat aaid rsl??aBe was ex^c • 
uted "by f^vi aald I'organ '-^itli full knowlodgs of all the fccts, and 
that he knew at thii.t tirno tlijat JJoran, t.ppGl ant hero, clairned the 
right to pursue MSckA the said property by re.aeon of the said note 
and V ort{?af:e, ua he liad the rif ht to do, tmd that ther after said 
Deniiie MxtA sold said house and lot to 8r.ld C&rr v/ithout providing 
for the aoaiunption cmd puynent of the anid note and Tiortriafre, * 
and that by reason of the roieaoe of said nortgage by said TJotj^mi ap- 
pellant la deprived of his ri-ht to proceed aj^ainot said property 
and foreolose said Mortgage, 

Th.T coxirt sustained a densirrcr to tjiia dooloration, appellant 
eloctod to stand by hia declaration, nd assir^ns t}m rullsg of t'le 
court in cttstalning the denurror as error. This d^^olaration 
St '.tea a i',oo<X cauee of aotion, and it was orror in the court to 
suetain tlio damurrer. The judctQ.?nt of the court is reversed ooid the 
cause renanaed with directions to overrule the denrarrer ?.nd to por- 
nit defendanta to plead to the declaration, if '.hoy so desire. 






-r \ I I I -'/ 



i^ ■ 

n. ^fo, 6001. April Torm, 19134 Aconda o. 1, 

Piled Oct ."16, 1913- 

Otto Horcionson. , 

Plaintiff in Hr or., 

VS, ; Eyror to Von^iilion. 

Louis l^iaffer. 

D^n*»t in rrcr. / 184I.A. 273 


Philbricl:, J.» 

Plaintiff kue» defendant for fcaw izii^rlsoimcnt. T]io faoti 

set out of T'Tlilcsh tliiiip ouit orisevi ae a}io'irn by the reoord^ aro as 

follows(« Plaintiff oii^ the^^th of Jftnuaiy, I9IO w i.8 in the city of 

\ / - or 

DanvillR. -B he contendir;' takinc ordoxb for certain proprietary patent 

nedlolnns for futui*e delivery, lie w.j.8 arrested at that tltie for pod- 
dline TTithin the llnlta of the city of Danville without firrt har- 
ing procured a lioense as required by an ordlnanca of the city of 
SanYille* Ifii waa airrestod in the eveninc» ta}con to the city x'-rlaon 
and there confi||Sd until tha following morning when he fraa taken be- 
fore the rolloe magiatrata, vrhore ha waa fined and required to poy 
tha fine cind costa, 2Jie office rrmlcin/;^ the arrest had no warrant, 
but upon a telepJione cominioatlon to the police atationi a patrol- 
nan n?uned "ilftiltera v;ent to the part of the city where it was report- 
ad that defendant waa peddling, :iade the arrest, a:'d took hit to 
the city prlaoB* Under the facts in this oaao whore i)laintiff waa 
found in the city of Danville tr;.vollinf^ from house to house vflth 
hla wktchel v;ith bottles and boxes contained therein, apparently in 
the act of peddling. It was unnooesr^ary that a v/arrtyit o!iot;ld be 
issiiod for hi.: arreatj ariple authority is veated in the police of 
thQ city to arrest a person In the act of violating an ordinance 
witliout a y/arrant havin-^ been iaaried therefor, The arreat rraa rxi^e 
about five o*clook In tho evonlng. Defendant, v.'ho rras Chief of 
Police of tJio city of Danville, did not aoaiat in the arrest, but 
o ing to the Ijiteneas of tho arrest and the inability to have a trial 
that evening, directed tlrnt plaintiff should be confined in the 
city prison until the follovring norning to await liis trial. 

On th« folloT/ins raornlnga^nihen th* tine for triiil arrivod« i>lalntiff 
8lcne<l a walTer of a trial by Juzyp under the provlsiosia of th0 
statute. It la the contention of tlie plaintiff tl^at the defendant 
Chief of Police of tJie city of Danville la liable for false irri] ri»- 
•nmcnt because he directed t}iat plaintiff bo confined in :hc cityjc^ until oho time of hie trial on tlio following laoming* 

Tho record of the Police Itegietrate offf^red in evidence by 
plaintiff Bliowa the tlt).o of the oauee^ the city of i^anville yb« 
plaint Iff I ooiiiplaint| pediling without u lloenee} fine asaeeedi 'x'cn 
Dollars,, 'i'liy,t on Junuary 3, 1910« on coi-^Jlaint filed hy the City 
Attomeyi cliar^^ing defendiuat with peddling without a license jde fen* 
dant in court eisned a v/airer of Jury, pleaded guilty to the c^uuJ•6e, 
then follows the jud{:iaRnt of t}io fine of Ten dollars tiiid aoato, ]x:f0n 
dant h;^d with him at tlie tine of his arrest a satoliel containing 
a bottle or bottles and a box or boxes, tilie Polioe ITa^istrate, 

H«V« Custer, was placed u on the stioid by plaint iff | the police 
Ifctgistrate testified that defendant, after standinc around, fln^illy 
said, "I v/lll plead guilty" j, and then slcned a vraiver of a jury 
trial. Plaintiff had upon his person aoiifl noncy at thn tlKo of his 
arrest, 4nd the amount of ".:ie fine and costs was retained by the Po- 
lice LT'/!:istrate out of this money and tlie balance was retuiTxod 
to the plaintiff, Mary E, OKiith, a x/itness for plJdintiff, testified 
that she bo\i{^t preparations of the plaintiff, oonetiass c&ye 
hixa orders and soriKitirues did not. 

At t3ie close of the plaintiff's evidence, tho court suatjiinod a 
motlofi tondireot a verdict for tho defendant, ontor^^d judgment on 
the verdict; and it is from that Jud4^::ment this appeal is prosecuted, 

Ylic errors asai/Tned to reverss this ^wXc^ent Are tliat it is 
contrary to the ovidenoe, tJiat .h-re were auffic|^t f '.etc to re- 
quire the question of false Irgprisonra'^nt to ho gxiomittod to a Jury, 
tliat the court errod in vtlrectinG a verdict, 
L Th© only question raised by tJiiis appeal is v/liether or not there 

was any nvldenoo tending to ahow a cause of action, and v/ant of 


reaaonabln cause for the arr-st. If there waa irobabl© cause 
for the arrest and reaaonabls ground to suspect or believe that 
the def*?n(lant was guilty of a violation of a city ordinance of the 
city of Danville, tlion thla action will not lie, Tnn rule is too 
fa.ulllar to need citation of authoritls's tlxat before cxn action :ror 
false in rlsoxinent can bo sustained it is Inoui^bcnt uyjon tho plain - 
tiff to ahaw that there was ns reasonable n^ound or caupe to bolicvs 
plaintiff guilty of the cliarge for whlcli he was orrosteA and for idK 
^fhloh ho was imprisoned, IVom U\o evidence the only oonclusion that 
can be arrived at is that there was reasonable cause to belioTS 
that plaint if fWas guilty of the cluxrce for which he was arrested; 
the trial court did not err In dlrectinc a verdict for the defen- 
dant , Plaint if hiiaaelf not only offered the record of the Jjiyjgciont 
of the Police Magistrate aho\,'lnf: that he pleaded guilty to vho ifcacn 
charge for ^hich he Iiad been arrested, but% the Police 1 cgistrate 
testified tJiat plaintiff was before hla at the tisis, and that he aid 
there plead guilty to the cliurge. This proof alone will bar £. recov- 
ery in thia kind or an action. 

Upon tho contention that pliiintiff was not niven irriediate 
trial upon being takon to tho city prison, tho city wxq not bound 
to proceed '7lth the trial at tJmt hour rjid had the ri :ht to liold 
plaintiff in ouatody until the city could be ab-.e to oedure v/itnoso« 
es and prepare for thr trial, jid under Section 12, Article 6, 
Chapter 24, H.H.S., 1909i it was not unla\7ful to confine plaintiff 
In the city X risen until the follor/lng scbxAAmk morning to await his 

Ve find no errors in the record, and the judfjaent of tho 
trial court is afflmod- 

A y P I R M ?. B.- 









"nn. ITo. 6014, 


Api*^^ llunt • 9 

VS.«r Kcpple.j 
AppollVe , „ 

Avrll Term, :^13- 
?ilod Oct, i6| 1913' 

A^nnda Tio, 57 



frojti Coimty Cou -1; of I.'cDonouch 

Philbrlck, J;, 

^ia action v/aa dTor.ri.ienood be Toro a Juotlco of th« Peaoo, 
where plalntdfr r«cover«A a Judcwt^nt, a} i)eal wae taken by dafenaant 
to the CoiAiity 'C!ourt| r^h/ro the coxirt directed a ju.igjnent for th« 
defondantf fruri \7hlch/t>lalntiff api^aala* 

Defendi^ir'^vsas a tenant fanner und Intending to move froia 
the farm which ho ocoupied^ prepared for a public sale, tlie sale wae 
held upon the fam v;here he resided antib wao conducted by an 
auotluneer. Pl.iintiff boucht at t}iat sole sowo tiBiotl-qr hay and some 
clover hay, olie tiiiothy hay waa in the mow of tlie barn t^nd ^he do — 
very liay v/a» ataokod under a i:oot in t3ie yard. It wua repre^ontod at 
he stale by the auctioneer <md by defendant tliat thJLs hoy was choloe 
and first olaas, ;-nd it was announced tluit the hay had been 
measured by uisintereated parties ;,nd that there wa» wlk imioh hay 
in the bam 'md so nnich in the tv/o bents (§t olofr hay in 'o}ie ytird. 
Another purchaser at this sale purclmsod one ton of thp tltiotl-y, 
and he w ,9 to havs tlie first ton, ho rewovod his huy leaving the 
balance for the plaintiff, plaintif" purohassd the tiriothy hay by 
tJie ton, plaintiff paid the defendant $176.07, Tor ;.he anoimt of 
hay rftpreaented by the defendant to be in the now, but novir cont ncis 
that the timoth:^'' hay did not hold out to the doasurenents cinnounced, 
and that about one ton of tlie clover hiiy WiS so b:'.dly danac'Sd that 
it waa unfit for use. 

The announoeiA -nt was oadc ut the tine of t!ie oale that anybody 
deairine to purchase tiie ttt:iotliy hay in t}io now, if not satisfied 
ith the rieasurer-ients ropreaented by the auctioneer and defendant, 


cjulci be -lv«n cji oportunity to re-ineasuro t.h« liajjrj the timothy Iwy 
..a» re«iaea«ured by i/luintlff h-fore he xaa io payraont for it, .ojid he 
Inoiato by hi« measurementa the ;<Jiount of hay v'hich he }, aid for v/ae 
not in the mow, Notwrlthatancling hie contention by him, ajid although 
he liad araple oiportunlty to ascertain the tuvioxmt of liuy tliore be- 
fore laallng pjiyment, he voluntariJy settled t}iorefor by payinf^ for 
the anount ropresonted by dofenclent, and he cannot novY conplain tlxat 

he did not f^et the full evnount paid for, 

As to tJie clover )Kiy. he ]}0U{:ht these two bents at Ol'^.?^'" 

per ton fcjnd the other at $14.i>0- pt^r ton. Plaintiff did not inake jay 
dent fur any of this hey on the day of the purchase, and t;.Q he )uj.d 
Blade arrangements to oouupy tlie fans on wliich defendant tlien liv- 
ed and expected to use the hoy ui on that faq^, he did not rrsiovs 

the same froja the far« urtiere it was puroliased, Aftor liuving niade 

the purchase I he v/ont upon this fana with hio xaauuK kM to v/ork and 

fed and lised portions of the hay, both the tiriotliy and tlis clover, 
and while so doing ho had ample ©viortunity to xaake a -."uli and cohi- 
plete investigation of the condition of this hay bofore paying for it 
but notwithsta.-dins he had been ui on tlie place with nuxarsroua teans 
and used a portion thoreof, he volxintatlly paid for the aiaount of lian- 
as roprosnnted by defendant; liavinf.: had tlis opportunity to disc-v- 

r its condition but having laciJe pa-ymont without so doing, he mads 
a voluntary settleiacnt therefor. 

Plaintiff cannot recover under theao conditions, not bcinc 

■iti'.led to recover, it is inr.'ut.terial v/hether the trial court coej- 
mitted any rror in Jie trial of Uie Ciauso or not. The Jmj^^^^^jn. 
jiulcwent is affirn«d# 






\ ' I / 


Gen. ro, 6018- 

Aprll Term|^1913* Agenda !To. 10» 
Filed Ooyf 16, 19x5- 

184I.A. 284 

Ai^peal from Hoiatrie. 



Vandal ia Hailrood Ct):.tpany/| 
ApiT'Ollant • , / - 

I'hllbriok, j\» / 

\ Thl^ is Lin action brovif^ht ^a^ plaint if -f to recover abt 
from the dofond^knt company for services rendered to it as station 
acenti ticlcat a^jcnti telegraph operator, etc., at the station of 
Lovington, County of lioultrie, T^ile plaintiff was in the employ 
of the defendant he Itold to parties at Lovington, aa ticket a£*ent 
of the defendant, tliree tickets from Lovington, Illinois to Seattle, 
^ashincton. The tariff and schedule of ^-ating for these tickets over 

e various lines of railroad upon trhich the parties purclmelng 
them wcAild have to 4jt»avel fro:;i Lovincton to Goattle rma i -rovidod 
in the office of the defendant'a^y at ovington, from vrtiioh plain 
tiff was required to ascertain t'le prices of the tickets. In oxasn- 
Ininc this \ 

to detornlne the price to be c'-'argod for these tickets, plaintiff 
upon his best judg:mcnt ar'fivod at the conclusion that the proper 
ciiarge fo" each ticket w»« ^'72,50» Prior to the tisK) of naltins 
the sale, plaintiff contends that ho applied tp one ponn, a Travell- 
ing Pasoencer Agent of the cte fondant cojoi^Jiny, concorninc the cor- 
root cliargo to "bo made, tuid inoicts tliat Pana, vrho hod authority 
to direct plaintiff in regard to this Eiatter, infornjsd plaintiff 
that he woxxld look up the in^ttcr v;hon he arrived at Terre raute, 
Inciiojia and ^sould \7lre plaintiff whether or not his oonclusiono 
were correct, 'iiid if plaintiff did not hear from eaid Ponn then he 

schedule of rates and tciriff Hot, in his findeavor 


ahould MBlc« th0 aale in accordance with his own conclusions. Plain* 
tiff did not hear fi'osi Penn or moeive any telogrcaa, and sold tlie 
ticket for the price of $72.I?0- Oo.oh, Afterth© sale had "been niade 
and the tickets used, it was found inDtcad of the iirioe being 
^72»l>0'' it should liAVo >een 0112.49, Plaintiff further contends 
tliat after the error wae discovered Penn informed plaintiff that he 
Y/ould stand between him tmd the coiv^jany for any loss in regard to 
the Bale, the riistalce having occurred by reason of Ponn»8 failure 
to investigate the ijiattcr upon his arrival at ^erre :!aute and to 
wire x'lain^i^* After some negotiations, two of the parties who 
purcliased these tickets p.'.id the bcilanoe due, the other party refused 
to cake fVArther p;.?y!nent, and t}>e d'^fendant catnp;iny called upon 
plaintiff to Tnake cood the loss, claiming that ho was short in his 
aooounts 039«99i plaintiff refused to pay this amount, or to stonA 
rosporisible therefor. 

Plaintiff ceased to be a,r;ent of the defendant at Lovineton ,• 

Plaintiff rjade written demands upon defendant for the payment of 


his waees, araounting to $100.71- ^^'^ served notice uhder Par, 13, 
Chap, 13 of irurd*s Revised Statutes, 1909^ i-"id brou'::ht suit for the 
nages due him beforee a Jus ice of the Peace, Plrdntiff recovered 
a judfi^nent before the ttiiotice for 0100, "!• Defendant aj^pealed 
to the Circuit Court v/liere jud(^ent was rendered aeainst defendant 
for ^U55.00,, plaintiff contending that by his claim beiiv: ^o^r 
wat: -liia, ho ia entitled to recover 035«OO as a reasonable 

attorney's fee, under I^. 15 of .he Otatuto, si;.pra . . The < ' - 

mittnd to the jury the question of the at oniey^o fee, ;and the j'ary 
returned a gene-ral verdict against defendant for ^11/. , ., vq>on 
which jt'd-iaent iai was rendered. 

Defendant doos not question the richt of pliiintiff to recover 
:'ference betv/eon the tiiuount of hi a vroces, i^X00»7li:md the a* 
mount of the loss, 039»99* caused by the sale of the ticket "c-aow 
the tariff rate, but insists that the court corraitted reversible 
error in submitting to Lho Jury tlae questlomi of tlic a^vtount of at- 
^n-y»8 fees, in rendering JuJr^nent for $155.00- 


Upon the content Ioa that the y^alntlff ie liable to the defen- 
dant for the lose occasioned by ilic sale of this ticket at a irlce 
below the tariff rates, the proof shows and it is not denied t}iat 
plaintiff used his best Judgment and iriuuqcx e-very msani^ available 
for the purpooo of ascertaining tho rate, and after having concul- 
ted nith his superior 'Tr, Penn regarding tha sane and havine avail- 
ed himself of every aeeuis at Ms corx:and to determine the correct 
amount of Wbi this farS| the loss occurred "by reason of an error 
in his judr^ient, fha nere fact that he made a nlstaJce as a^nnt of 
the deffindant company does not render him liable to the do fondant 
therefor, and the loss^ if any, imder ids such condltlota, ruist 
fall upon the defanclant, 

Schmidt V. Pfau, 114- 111., 4^, 

Upon the contention, hov/ever, tliat the court 0rr«5d in subnit- 
ting to the Jxiry the question of the atto-^ney's fee, vo are aatisfi- 
ed that in this t'le court was wrong, tliat the question of the amount 
due plaintiff for his vjages was one for the determination of the 
jury and before an attorney's fee could be alio /ed, under any 
circumetances, it w^s necessary that thp Jury sliould find t}iat the 
amount due him was tho arauunt tjornanded of tli© def-rndant in the v,Tit» 
ten demand made by plaintiff, and find tliat tlie atuount was due 
for labor , -races, etc., W.C.Ex, Co., v, T., 57 Ill«t » Apr., 6o6, 
C.W. & V. C.Co., V. Balmcr, 4-5 111,, App., 6o; hy returning a ron^ 
eral verdict including; an atwornoy's feo, there is no '.-ay to l3ter* 
TCiino vr'iat a::iount the jury a4.4.owed "or attorney's fee or vfiir^t iv.ount 
the jury s!±2bDaat found to bo due ao wa^cs, and thjxt if the jury hnA 
returned a vordict finding yiat the deaRSad was for the correct 
OTiioi'ntf ,and that the claim vvu.s for labor as a servant or le.bor in 
' ".0 ^r.iploy of the defendant for a^ vfoeoo, then it becanie the duty 
or the court to fix a recwsonable solicitor's fee and the question 
the amount of solicitor's fee wc-s not a proper question to -x'^y 


nit to he Jury. 


S^etoher v. Ilasaay., 4-9 111,, App», 3B- 

ApiMillcuit also Inelets t'-xit tlw Judssncnt Is err-onooua in ilie 
fact tliiit It is for an amount in excess of the denmnd ma-do before 
the Jus lice of the Peace, and endorsed by him ui on -he back of the 
su^imons* This domand was for I^IOO. 7X» the cuaount of wages due, 
and^ if r.n att. orneyfs fee Bhoiild bo allo\/sd, whioh oust be taxed 
as costs. It was not tlio province of tiie plaintiff in nakinc his 
demand or br incline suit before the Ju-stice fof the Peace to fix the 
amount of the attorney's foe und include it in his demand, ho could 
aodtje dezaand only t^.e ai^^imt due him for waGos, an this denand must 
not oxceod the aniount found to re due upo^ the trial, if the re* 
covory is less tJian the demand no attorney's fee can bo recovered, 
" ' if the deraand is found to be correct, then it beoor;ies the <&ity 
u. ihf, court to fix the aiuount of the attorney's fe^? and tax it as 


The qur^stion oo<iten:^ed by defendant t'vjaX j^gx an a,ttorney»8 fee 
^r the «iiii<ifc>i«A statute, OiAnnot be rooweered for an employirient 
w- iihis cliaracter is not clear .xid. is nbt fren tram doubt. Some 
of the Appellate Courts of this state held that under such ecap 
ployment an attorney's fee is proper to be recovered, ot'jers tl-iat it 
is not, "^p, V, l^pp,, 17 111., A::.,, 196, \7e ■■re i.clined to iho 
opinion ihat the statute is broad ououch in it 3 terris to rorrriit 
the recovery of atLorney*s x-ece by one enployed as plaintiff %ms, 
Por tlie error corioitted b;- t-hf^ trial court in sulxnitting the 
question of tlte jjiriount oC the .attorney's fee to be recovered, if 
any, to the jury, the juJc^^ent ust be reversed atld the cause reniaa- 

Heversed and Heirian -ed. 






h '\ 




>«AHSAv,#mjt,..S^*?* " 

Goneral jnercbor 6022 

Af?onc?n 13 

Uary Kftnlnlelcl, Adoinlotratrlx 
of t'.io ostnto of yrank 
Knminiakl, decoared, 

April Torn, A, D«, lvi3i 

2, U' ^^^^■^■^•^^t 



Com Products Bofining Co«, \ 
( a qorrorntion), \ 



Appon.1 frraa Tasowell. 

/ ^ . i I. A. 2 86 


Philbrlc3f» J, 

Plaintiff brings this action an^-inst dofen^lant tn recover 
for t)!e alloged wrongfiAl death -of her Irusband* T)io doolr.ration 
io lr4 r.ovorr.l cnvintR, tho aiibstrnce of wliioh r^ro that t}io dof oxid- 
ant oonpnny woo in t};e poooeaaion, n\'moroJiip nnd control of o, 
r»oodon box located in a afcreot or public hicJway of tlio city of 
?elfln along mid adjacent t'- tho prorerty owjcd by tha dofcncl-'nt 
cotrpany. Tlie declaration in various oounts c'-rrf-os timt tho 
defend:.nt conotruotod thio box in tho iiublic hiitih'.'rnj'- in fuel: a 
negliRant und inpr-per cnnnor ■'•.riat plaintiff 'b ^/'n -mg- 
•Jririnf! along end upon naid public hif^'r-my mt-s r ■.••np^on rnr; over 
vnd up(ai onid box t^JtiA tliat by rouoon of the box oxtondiri'-' ribovs 
tho loyol of tho public hif^lr^Tay thnt tho '^'hool?:! of t'lc '^f^.r.rv. upon 
7;}iich plaintiff's ijjtentabo '.Tar; ri-''inj[j dropped vri'^h -trent -r-^rce 
in! violonoe '^hereby ■■/')(•; docs:^o.rod rrv.o throve fror-^ th's van'^n "^hich 
nassod over and killed hir.. One count ollef^oa that t-'.o defend- 
ant unlawful?-y and nenlicontly raint'^inGd anid box in onid higii- 
vra;- in yuch a cnndjtion ac tri oauso tho in.jury; nnot.her alleges 
that defendojit not only i^iatalled tho box, but nince ins-.a31ing 
Gllo'»rod it tc bocojfo find runnin in a don^'or^ua ruid tUieafe cr 'edi- 
tion '.Thereby the decoacod in driving: al rnf: highT.ray ran ox'-er 


ojid upon the aare r^nd vras thrown from his wagon, Injvired and 
klllod. The trial resxated in a verdict mid jud^nerit a£^ain«t tho 
(\9f en.(*.ant for Seven Thousand Dollars* 

Tho proof diaclosee that the defendant corroration o'rmcd 
oortnin property along and adjacent to the highway wherein thie 
box yrtxa situcted, that the "box was built in the highway and that 
oertnin pipes from tho City Water "'orks of the rrity of Pekin laid 
along said hiRlivmy tn said box onA fron the point -"rhore the box 
?rn8 constructed the pipes wore run to the property novr owtied by 
tho defendant conpony and supplied this property vrith vmtor, the 
box -sraa built in tho street for tlie pvirpone of obtninlnf accofls 
to the pipes whenever necessary; this box vras constructed in this 
highway by former o'-tiers of the property, that after tho oox was 
constructed in the street ofchor parties had owned thitt property 
before the defendant cosipany hnd acquired it; that the defen^lc-nt 
company 'Ud not in any nanner have onythin?: to f'o *^ith tho T>lacinG» 
constructing or buildlnp; of t}t.o said bor in t>i-3 public hiph^ny, 
and that since ownlnr the property the defendant cormcny has not in 
anj"" way repaired or interfered with tho construction or locction 
or contll-tion of tl-.e box in any nnnner; thnt the only cnnnGchion 
that the defendant compnny hr'S hrA -rlth tho said box VJ'as t-:^ iico 
the water rrhich came upon its prenises fror. tho Pekin '''' ter 'orks 
th-"ouch the connection at; thio box; that tha box hrd been 
placed in the street during tl-e year of 1^02, tl:iat at the tirso of 
itr> construction it wnn pl^.cod belo^ the level of tho stroot end 
filled over with dirt ao tiiat it co-^'ld not be obocrveci and was not 
a hindrance or obstruction to the travel along; the street, tact it 
-.'Toa constructed in the rl'^.ale of the street ^hict! -^ao ti;irt3-fnroe 
feet wlf'.o, t^ioro ws ara::le roon o\: either aide for th.e pr.ssin^^ of 
teans either 'yay, thnt on various occaoions before the defendant 
becone the o'^nor of the pronert;,s rains !^nr\ T'ater running;! in the 
nt-'-eet wp.shed tho dirt army fron the "oot and • ade ravinec O"*- holos 
at or near the oides of the box, that those h'd frequently "oeen 


filled up by peranns uslnr tho street o.n'^ at tinoe by the city of 
Pekin. The factn further disoloso that plcintiff'n inteBt.nte hcd 
been hnulinr briok anrt teaming upon tho straeta of the city of 
Pokin for oeveral yoars . that ho had had occasion to paso thi» 
box several tisnea a day while en^n-eed in the %vnrk he vms doinc ot 
the time of hie death, he had been for nerernl days haulinp brick 
along this Btreet, that upon th.i day in question at the tine of 
the injitry, in^iteftd of occupying that portion of tJie atroot rhich 
■^as free fron obstruction, and notwithstanding tho box extended 
above the level of the street oeveral inches and wae plainly 
visible, the deoeased was riding upon his wogrsn loaded rrith bricks 
with his book to tlie oide of tho wa^on nnA pa^-ing no attention 
whatever to the position in the hifjh^ray thnt his "'ulo teoj^i was 
taking, and that by reason of this the to'.xm wandered ut^on the box 
and when the wheels struck the box and dropped thorefrom, the 
bricks upon the front end of the wp^on began to fall rcnrinn the 
tenia by reason of v?hich they ran avray and plaintiff's intentcte 
fell fron the ivagon and ^ras run over ond killed. 

Defendant inniste that the ,1udcr"©ni* i^^ \"?rnnR Oii J ohf^ulr''. be 
reversed because it is contrary tr the ovi.-'ftnce, boca-ao thcro is 
no negligence ei:nvni on the y^irt "f the defen(''.ant r,nd that viaintilT »s 
intestate wan giiilty of onf-.rioutory nopiligence. 

Tho oni.y theory upon r^'^ich thin action cnn be r-aintn.ined 
aci:ainat the defon^^ant, if at all, is uiion the t';er'ry that tho 
nnintaininn "f tl'.'o b^x in the pulilic hirinvay for t-.o uco of t)\e 
defendant company i^rar: a public nuisance, niir' tnat it 'mis ita duty 
to abate it, ar>d in failing to -lo en it vrtiB nogligen!-, 'isSb t> * 9^rf K3L 

*iw'(fi9"^j,j>«WNtiI*ac>>4«f«^aiit ' •«f«wp«ii-y., -,t«o. .iibat «»•••■ t-h«»=-'m a--aitfi,c«.'*^-''»-- 


Tho law iMBBBP're quired tlmt the dooeftsod while in the noe 
of the public Btreoto should have boon in the ereroino of drie care 
and caution for liia o^m snfety, oonmensurabla ^rlth tho Known condi- 
tions, ond the evidence disolooing that he kner the con(Ution of 
this box, the deceased having prssed it reverfil timea a day for 
several deya prior to the accident in going to a id fron tho plnce 
where ho rras hauline the brick, he rtuet be held to linve had kno?r- 
ledge of tho condition thereof. 

In driving along the highway irithout payinf: any attention 
to -jrhere he Traa goin^, ^Tlthout giving anj' attention to tho direct- 
ion of his team, aittin?^ with his H.lde to t))c fr^nt of t' o "waijon, 
and kno"wing the condition of thf? hir;hway over "rhich he woe 7>oosinf;, 
he was guilty of nuch contributory negligence as ^ill bnr a recovery. 

It was the duty of tho trial o-^urt to have rir&n the instruc- 
tion asked for by tho defendant to direct a verdict fov tho dofandcmt* 

Tor the reason that no judgment can be raaintn.ined aftainet 
the defendant upon the facta in thia cvbq or t'ln lr>i7 applicnble 
tliereto, the judgi*:ent nuat bo revernod* 

The Olerk ^11 enter in the Judf^nent of thiii cciirt the finfl- 
inr of fact that i^i» ga ie fe4« ie5JOTF »M»i > «(» *.>^^ 

tiff »s intestate was not in tho Gxercife of 'lue caro rm' caution 
for his own Bafety nt anr' beforo tho tine of t>ic injury. The 
judgnent is reversed. 



Gen, No, 6023- April Term, 1913/ Ag. No. 73- 

Pilod Oct. 16/ 1913- 

Yilllaa J. Jones., 
VS« ; Appeal froa Uaooii, 

Cincinnati, Hamiltion and Iteytoa / 
Railway Co., a corboratlon., 

"""^;" -; 184I.A.2 87 

Biilbrlck, J.- 

Plalktlff was /a passenger upon the defendant* a rail- 
road from Decatftr t«\cajBragi6, Illlbols, he had a trunk with him as 
baggago. The train up^n wjiloh plaintiff travelled arrived at Ca»argo 
at about /ive o'clock ^^ m« on th« 20th day of December, at that time 
it was dark and plaintiff informed the station agent that he v/ould 
get his trunk on the following mprnlng, to which the acent replied, 
"All right". The trunk was placed in the depot by the defendant, 
during the ni;f;ht the depot was broken into, the trunk rifled and 
the con ents taken. Plaintiff below recovered a judgment for 
^5^»5^t ^Tom v/hich defendant appeals. 

There are ^wo questions raised upon this record, one as to the 

liability of the defendant for tlie loss of the goods, the other the 
question as to iiii**iifrff w -^thern plaintiff is entitled to recover 

for the loss of the contents of this trunk to the amount of the 


It i£s conceded by defendant that it was required to use due 

and ordinary care for the protection of the property and trunk 

of the plaintiff and that if it did so it is not liable KKaawx±k«x 

unless the proof shows It was guilty of grosa negligence In }.'at 

regard. The proof shows that the trunk vaas placed in the depot 

v/here a± it was at the time the station agent left the dppot. 

The door into the waiting room of the depot was locked by a night 

look which was operated from t e inside of the room, a, cioor of the 

ticket office which opened into this waiting room was alfl« locked, 

but a door leading from the waiting roo« into the baggage room where 


thtt defendant contends the troak was plaoad by ftts ci^^ent was not lock 
ed. Aeoess to the trtuik mia gained by ontering the ticket offde, 
thence into the waitln{^ rooa and then to the baggage room. 

The jury was properly inst^Tioted as to the oars required ts 
be exercised by defendant in the keeping of this trunk, and there 
being ns diaputs as to the evidence as to the tl^ie when the trunk 
arrived at the station, in calling for the trunk upon the follov/ing 
morning, plaintiff called for it v/ithin a reasonable time. The ques- 
tion as to whether or not the derendant used due and ordinary 
in placing the trunk in the baggage room without having locked t at 
room was for the jury to determine, they found that issue against the 
defendant by their verdict, and we are not prepared to say that it 
was olearly and manifestly a ainst the wei ht of the evidence, or is 
not warranted by the evidence; consequentlj , it will n6t be disturb 
bed by this court. 

The evidRnoe discloses that plaintiff had formerly resided in 
Caaiargs, Illinois, that he had been for some time v,forking at De- 
catur, that his v/ife was dead, that hf^ liad some graddohildrsB at 
Camargs; he had worked during 'he summer near Decatur, on Ms leav- 
ing Decatur to return to Caaargo he put in jiis trunlc all of 
his wearing apparel, tu ether with such personal--! property as he had 
or was used by him, he also bouf^ht several more artiolss and trink- 
ets in Decatur for 'lia grandchildren, , these were of no considerable 
value, and plaintiff was moving all his effects from Decatur back to 
his forTTier hoae in C^ynargs, he placed i.heae articles purchasedsiw by 
him in Decatur in this trunk; he also had in the trunk a small amount 
of jewelry xThich had formerly belonged to his wife. At the time that 
he went to Decatur he apparently took with him all his effects from 
Camargs to Decatur, they were carried in his trunk and on returning 
back to his home he carried them in the same manner. While ordin- 
arily jeweley and merchandise placed in a trunk and not used or 
needed by the pasaenger for the purpose of his journey or for .ais 
own personal u^e or comfort cannot be recovered, the evidence does 



not disclose tliat the paoking or carrying of these articles In the 
tmnk was done with iOni any Intention to defraud anybody or to take 
adTantage of appellant while plaintiff was travelling over Its lir* 
of road, that the amount of "beiggage »arrled by hta was w! thin the 
limit permitted by the compaayi and we are not prepared to hold upon 
the evidenoo in this record that the contents of the trunk of the 
plaintiff were not nsoessaryfor his ordinary and usuaji uae and com- 
fort, wherever he Ight ohoose to go, and we think that the jury 
rightfully gave him a verdict for the contents of this trunk, and 
that there was no error in rendering the jud ment on that verdict. 
It will, here fore, be afflmsd* 






-'/v.i I 

cicn, 1:0, 6038- 

April Tern, 1913- 
Piled Oct.'l6> 1913^ 

Georcf^ H, Lovekunip, 



John 'J» Cuuiriings., 


Agenda IIo, 25- 

eal fron !T.. cousin. 

184I.A. 2 97 

Philbrick, J.- 

Thl8 is an action ■broi;in^\t j6y a}'pellant a^alnet appellee 
for darnan«B alleced to havn be on suojtalned by appellant by retison 
of the allofjedx failure pjid refuaal^f appellee to conqiloto and 
flilfil an alleged contr ct of sa/e of a fam owned by appeller cmd 
clairrd by fippelic-mt to have begA Bold to hirn ui n a cohtract of 
pur chase. V 

The transaction fyrovrs out of a desire of appellant ,0 iwt" 
chase a farm; he went to Richards and Sparkmaa at Litchfield, Illin- 
ois, they took hin to see the fam owned by appellee, Ric}iarda and 
jparkrnan did not have the fam for sale and were not repres'^nting 
%pp llec in ahy manner, "but ifter havin-: taken appellant ±jbt to ses 
the farm they \nrtte appellee and aslced Iiim it the farm was for sale, 
',. 1 '--llec replied that ho would sell the farm 'ich con 
tr/o hundred acroa for ^^^^ price of alinnteen Thousand 7ive Hundred 

> bIlOv,!! b;- c rrosT ondence had uetvreen 
parknian raid api>elle •, ?achardB and" SparJrx^ 00: aiunica- 
F tad th.T. .0 appellant, r.ichardo and aipellrjit vniit to Hti Loiiii 

-'here appellee lived to confcs* v-ith him xs^^ssx^SEoa^daigx regarding 
h© sale, L*.n-\ appelle-' then af:reed to sell tha farm upon the t nns 
ind conditions ctated in this corr'-iS]>ondcnce with Richards and Spark 
roan. Appcll;mt retur .itcfirisld 'ith Ricloards and there they 

entered into rin acreenent for ihe sale and purclmae* of this prop- 
""'ty, , '"he contrcict was aic. ,}>pellant and by Richards taid 

"parkman as agents of appellee, The terms of i.!iat contr ct 

dollars Ihet to )iinj — — -- 



not noot the conditions and roqulremontB contal: ed In the offer of 
ai'pellee to sell his taxa^l ons of his propositionB of aale was that. 
the sale should KSk net him nineteen Thousand Five Ihindred Dol- 
lars, in the contract signed "by Richards and sparknian, claiming 
thonselves to be agents of appellee, they contracted hat appellee 
should pay a ditch tax levied upon a ditch aljout to bo constructed 
for which an assesnent had beenilevled .v:aln8t this property j the 
cpntract also provided that the sale and paynents s>iould not he 
made untlX the following IJarok although this contract was made In 
Septombor, As soon as appellee discovered that Richards and 
Sparkmon had ex cuted the contract ao his purported aeento he re- 
pudiated the contr.ct and Tet\xBed to i erf oira It, ineistlnf; that 
it was not according to the terms which h^- had made and that Rich- 
ards and Sparkman were not his accents and liad no uthority to ex- 
ecute a oontrtot for him, 
The cause jOBbitried twice in the lo^Ter court, the first trial 

resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. Thllis verdict wc.s set aside 
and a now trial chanted, upon the second trial it vras ar:reod by c.nd 
between the liarties that the reporter who took the evidence upon the 
first trial in short hand sliould transcribs his notes and tlie cause 
shovad be submitted upon tJie second trial upon this record to the 
court wilihout the intervention of a jury v/n; ' , -r- "by both 
parties, 'xhe trial court found the issues ic> .uu --■ . naant anc ren- 
dered judgment upon lis finding. Ho xroppsitions of law were sub^ 
nitted to the court to bo - — r' upon by It and no questions of fxt 
subiaitted to be found by it, io has beenrepeatedly held 'y this 
court and the Suprene Court 3i]mt v/}iere a c Oise la eub:!^' "' ^o the 
trial court without a jury to be aetemined by the triui. ^juurt, 
where no questions of lavf or fact are subnitted to the court to be 
passed upon by it tlie record preserves no questions to be passed upon 
"hy llie cimrt to which the apx'cal n r^;-- "^-^ ■'- ■■"-. n?' the v;rit of error 

3?ro-port V, Orr, 171 111., 203, anci ouooo cited ut lote 3, 
page 7i>l, 8 111. C3yc. Big, 

"Por the reason that thTe oue no quooti ns preaonrod in this 
rocord to bo passed upon ^yy this court, th« Ju :;:ra<int Is affiinned* 

A P » I 3^. M T^ 1). 








General number 606 

>pril ^er^a, . r. , 1913 

Piled Oct/ 16, 1913- 

AleA Hem il ton and ..lurie 
'Jiimilton, Partners, 



Farle Shaipso n , 

184I.A. 316 

ppeul from lonard 


•hilbrioiC, J. 

Appellees lived upon n £um in Henard County, a ehort 
uistanoo from this farm f.nd ecroas tae highway appellant resided. 
Appellees were onringed in rait.ijig tutkeys for •li.rket and htid se- 
oure* BOine v -luabl'? stook, during the season of 191*., they ii&tohec; 
one htindroi and fifteen turkeys anci Bucceedod in raising- a' out one 
hixndred t.nd eleven of them ur.til July liret; at abo^<t t alt' time 
tiio turkeys began to v ander aT/L.y frora tiio fan-i '•f. anp- llees and 
trobpaBb quite extensively on the f-urr-)unulrig o -unt^^y, incluaini: 
inc £ixrv\ of appellant. TurkeyB soon begc-n to, tmcl Boae 

v/ould come home <■ t ni iit b; cly biniised t-nti crip 'led. *^or one 

turl<ev hen which v/a killed o- died appoilees had p; Id f fty c'-jlXare. 
A|>pell6efi lost in all about roventyrCour turkeys. "^^ -oy br">ufht suit 

- 2 - 
against appellant for their loss, and recovered s Juograont ap: Inat 
hJm lor T "O Hundred tinu. Kigiity-fiTe ollars; end apoel/i&nt, feellag 
tiu-t iie hus b en grievously wronged by roaoon thereof, proseoutes 
this feiipeal. 

The only question in/olv. d in talB cbbo Ik one oT fact; the 
law u B br^en oroporly aoplieil, &nd tao Jury correctly i-nC fully 
instructed upon a'.l queetionf^ oT. Iav7 in/olved, by lt8 verdict the 
jury has detnrmined the quostl )n8 of Tact against appellant, and 
\mleBB thia court on feel warriinted In saying th.<'t the verdict 
iB clearly anc* manl^ostly a^airint the /eight 'f the evidence it 
should not b^^ di Mturbod. 

Upon ^ Oi reful OAmimtlon o.C the eviderioo In thit-- cano vie 
find tliat the proof is th?: t a vpoileeB had engaped quitfi nxtenBlv-- 
].y in the riat^lnp o..." turkoyo, ihey hj.d selected a part cellar brned 
and had paid as high as fifty dcllir.;; for fome o ":' the pftrcnt ; took, 
that curing the Beaeon o*' lOlIi ."oraething Like one hundred f..iid fifty 
t\irkQyB had boen iiatched, (Ud aftsr they hiC gro'^^i to reifh from 
three to five nounds, they bofr-n, *;i5 in ohown to be- th. cu;;toffl of 
the turkey, to •vander awry from horar cu^lnp the dry foraging ; nd 

{ . 

- 3 - 

returnint'^ home tvt nifht to zx>08t. The evidence furthr>r die- 
oloBeB thf^ t there hrd been Fonn oontrovevny nn« diajmte between 
ttppelloes ftnc appellant rogfcrdln^v the tre8j)a>u3lnp of theB>^ turkeys 
upon Bnpe lant'B farn, unC. tho evidence (ilfcloBeB tturl. f ppol lant 
hfvi , t ipaBt at one time B-.ld thi t he rr-uld kill t.heno turkeys If 


' they did not keep o'"," of hii ilece. He no'. Inftiata th: t this was 
mere talk, and he never Intondcd vo tlo afl iip 8^ id. The evidence 
further d1 Boloees that m one ooouBion two p rn^ im o riving '^&Bt 

i his olaoe saw hira throw a club at one oC tan tjurkeyn which was up«n 
iiui lirab o '" e tree it hia plr.ce. /* nunbe-f of tho tur'rCoyD that dis- 

' appeared from appellees' flock were found lyinp dead in the hl-hvs'ay 
s.lant2 the fence of appellant's frrra, '-nd i^imig were "ound read on 
his ftrm, ana he h? d notified appnllees that 'hey muist not perrait 
their turXeys to trefvpacs on hie land. ^he evidence doe:- not di n- 
cloKe taat c.ny serious drma^ e vruti none to t-ppe llant'e farm or to 
the oropfi the'oon by ropson of l,hc trGRx>assi.r,R turkeys, but ht-^ eon- 
tends tiih.t by roftson o i" tncir troBpaejjing he hyd tho rirht to drive 
thera '>£'' from the pltioo, v.-hilr thi;; ri^'ht rau. t be c^r;cedec; to him lib 
roatter of law, the mere fact that thr^ turkeys we'-o treppar? ing 



- 4 - 

on hlB place g^ve him no right to kill or Injure them. 

From tho evidonoe in this ca g we Batiefied tatt tho jury 
was warranted in arrlTlne- at the o nclusion they did, raid return- 
ing a Tordiot against appellant, and th* t the yerdlot 1b v.arranted 
by tho evidence. 

City o Alton T. "oliM06 131. Ap-)., 576. 

The oou't aid not er'- in mnderinp judfinent, and the*e being 
no revpraible error in the record, the judfmont Is acconUng-ly 














Ganernl TTurabor 6069 

AgondM 70 

April Tera. . .# 1913 

Town of (Tftortetown ex rel 
T-'ugone ' u.irtler. 

A. op ol Ian 


Osofcir Mo Porkle, 

Piled Oct, l6, 1915- 



">hllbvick, ■ J, 


T»i6 isii an Hofioa by ^"uj-ene xinrtier in the nrme 

'\ / 

of the ?own of \eort et<nwn in Vfrmilion roimty against (ieforjclrritK 
for the obHtructionMf nn allepod ^ubiic Siighway. This cfise nea 
iiefore tni! court upon a prior hearing, ttnd a judgmont in frvor 
of tno dofendfinte ms ravr; f^f. unoa er orn of lew com;)- tted by Vao 
trii^ 1 court upon the Corraor tr'&l. iVho cause Wi s ro'iiir.doo to the 

irouit Court Tor another trial, iveid anotht r jury returned a vo- diet 
in fnvnr o .' iho defendunts, upon Phich judt'^tmt waB renderf^ri, £.nd 
froo which ^he r-'L-tor appetls. 

rOhe hifchwfty waich it i. c ilcgeo hi s been obstructed by defond- 
.. ntB iB claim d to exist pturtin^ from & point on oh^- Bou'h lino of 

oction 5, Iowa IB, ^Torth, Riai 11, oEt of the Ed ^,li, Verioilion 



liiity. A public highway runs alonf the a uth line of Section 
o. <.i.i- it ir. oontonded thi^t the allflpod public road v.inh iv r^ hr-en 

obstructed ie on the quarter section lino betvjeen thp east and 

west aalf of the south rutrtor of said Section 5, extending 

from tiuit point north abouc t: quarter o a aile and froa the^f> ly 

ane'lek: ofr vnd leadfi to tv conotery ari. Blaut'htBr house, the 

s'.uut'htor house boin^ ovmeri t-nd operated by the relator upon land 

nicjh he iQKBe. from one onooks. This road ^h olai eci to oxict 

b;f reason of presoription, there beinf: no contention that * nj ror.d. 

exists or one wat; oTer laid out in i\nY other way. Ak f^ r bfick ; s 

the earlj fi/tier it seorae there wpa-^ a lane opened fron this point 

on the touth lino o •: P.octlon I) cxt«ndir«^; north. I?hi; lane ae 

originally opened was not on ' hn ruartor section line but 1^ y to 

the ea^t o^ it. A short distance north of tne hijhwey on the 

south or the section r. cuplo oT reridoncoK r!Qrc st n^lng-, onr- on 

the Oc tit eifjhty anu the other on t;he v/est, and tnlc lace was opened 

first lor acc'ost to these ronldenees. 7hr eviti-^eo 1p oon?llotinr 

f: t . V lother a ^ate v. & Lnai.itained at ttie entrance to this lane 
v/ikore it; ipened off froia the pu lie hi^^hway on the south of Section 
6, but the evidence di closes thr t ut v rlouF. t i ne^* durinf tJl of 

- 3 - 

the tlmo that this publlo road Ir. cl^lnod to hfivo exiBte< a fate 
or bftTB hRd beer nHlntainrd at thii plaoe^ /rtwr thif^ itmo rhlch 
8 of no definite width extended north ah nt eighty rodB it then 
ceaaod to .-nuint. in any po'^T^^l di recti "^n, part oC the tine propio 
travelled on the vest of it throufh the paeture, part of thn tl e 
to the east of it through lae pasture, and no donf'roation of any 
line of tr^.vel vrf.s evor naintalnod from that point on. To the 
, north of thin eighty rods, buck in the et.rly forties anc fi 'tier., 
there were everKl h^user tog-othrr v.'lth e schoil houBe lociited 
eomewherp on the ^est oiphty of thn quurte'^ octlon, but it also 

ppears that the schiol houso ct one time ^f b locator ovor on the 
eaet ei£hty nearer to the ofest line of the seotion. Thero lias 
been no reBldenoes f.rounci thi r pl> cc for fifty year? exoeoting 
one thf t in no^; oocuplec by a neg^ro family. The locftion 

of thn tovm of "eBtville t rh''> rt distj.nce from t.i-i.i; plr oe ^^f-p: the 
ouj. e o the vacating of all these roBldonoea. But It i; in? i;.' ted 
by rolator tnat no tv.ithi^ tending this fact thiF rof fi wt^a alvirays 
maintained or kept open as u Miiilic highway for the use of any 
person de; Irinp to u:-e it. But thr evidence cili-olOBfp. thst "iille 


- 4 - 
poeple use this lan« at the uouth end at t.i e point along this lane 
liHTs were kept or 'naintulned moot of the t1 ne, aftflr reaohingr a 

dnt about eighty rods north of tho Bouth line of r^eotion 5, 
'ura/el thefi vu.-: >.ef looted to the west to reach the reeidonce 
oooupiod or ov.neo hy one Bluok at that ti;ue; thf. territory, both 
on tue etift and went Bide of this Quarter eaotion line, was open 
timber tmt. piirtiee travelled ir. nil dlrectl'^r.B through It, both 
to reoCh the fachooi house and tho ocmotery, and they were not con- 
fined to any specific line oL' travel. That the oenfitrry v-ae 

oated along f~ ravine and th. t it wae nooeseary to erose this 
ravine when going through thie- lane to re. oh the oemetory, but that 
instead of doing so in a public highway, one of the reaidences in 
tho Yieighborhood was used ao a stopping' place, and all corpRen were 
carried from this retJidenoe scroLS the ravine t^ the oetnetery. 

V,o are Batisfied thi.t the verdict of tho jury ir. fully r.Tirran t- 
ed by tho evidence, and two juries have passed unon this question, 

iul the laat one by consent t nd fgreom^nt of the parti f^B hiwing 
vinited the surrounding conditi )no tmd ex' oiinec the alleged highway, 
havo found agfdnst the contention of tie relator, ^nd we find no 




- 5 - 
tt^aeon for dletiirblng their ve -diet unon the faotB as nroven. 

' ooelltjit ini;iuti3, hov;ov«r, that the oonv-t orred In •p'^millno' 
It to be nJiown Viw.t tliere was anothor highway or public roKd by 
which aooev B mic iit be guir.ed to i^his oemotory, while thif toBtimony 
«R8 wholly irimaterial i.nd whoulfl not ha e been permitted, the error 
h*iS not nrOjUdiced lac re U. tor, and ae a s not been injure^ by 
its admission. 

Finding: no reverBible orro>- in thi; record, the jucijSTnent is 









<' ^ ^ 






Gen. ro, 6074- April Term, 1913- f Agenda ITo, 4-9- 

Piled Oct. 16, 1913- 

George Heyan, ^illiaai Heyen and 
Albert Heyen«, Partner* 
doing tuslness \mdor the firm name 
of Heyen Bros., 
Appellee- . 

TB, ; Appeal/ fr on ITaooupin, 

Cleveland, Cincinnati ,Chicag« / 
and St, Loulp Railv/ay Coiapany,, .' 
Appellant,, , / 

I.A. 322 

Pliilbrlck, J.- 

Plrdntiffs were aseicnees of a ctir load of cattle shipp 
ed fror.i Ecst St, Louis to Gillespie, Illinois over a line of the 
ds endajit's railroad; \he shipment'' was made by anith Brothers and 
Sparks, who were brokcrss^t East St, Louis, plaint if s herein v/eree 

feede-8 of c;.ttle, and the cattle were boUf;;ht by -heia for feeding 
purposes. The oattle were loaded in the cars of the defendant com- 
pany at Bast St. Louis late in the afternoon of February 20, 1912- 
they v/ere tak^n froi.i the yards at one-thirty A*K«, on the ruornins 
of SV^bruary 21st, on the first available train. ITom the Brooklyn 
Yards at East St. Louis to liillespis is about forty-fivs miles, i.he 
oat .le arrived at th-sir destinatisn at ;;.bout three-fifty-four p.m«, 
on the afternoon of Pebrviaiy 22d,, ■ aving been on the road thirty- 
eight hours, the schedule running tima of this train fro^ii the y<v.rds 
at East St. i.ouis to Gillespie was eiriht hours* At the time or soon 
after the cattle were loaded in the cars at the Brooklyn Yt^rds ^.t 
East St. Louis a snow storm began find it was snov/ing r-nd stoming 
at the time the t:-ain startsd fran the yards ut East St, xouis 
at o e-thirty a.m, on the morning of the 2l3t- T'lia torn after 

taging for some hours resulted in one of thhe severest snuv/ storms 
and blizzards erer known in tliat sedtion of the oov.ntry « 
The train proceeded upon its journey, hov-ever, v;ith fairljr good 



progrees until it pas^Jtd a station known as Bunker }Iill, after leavi- 
Ing "unker Hill, the train encountered a anov/ drift in rrhicli the 
train was stalled, and could proceed no fu^-ther xuitil it was shov- 
eled from this drift; after sufficient anov/ imd "been reracved, then 
with additional ^ncine pov/er the train proceeded on its Journey, 
IXiring the time that this storm was raying ^.nd after the t-ain v;a8 
stalled in the drift arter leaving Bunker Hill, the anow drifted so 
that it was impossihle to niaJ:e Any proj^ress tovmrd removing the 
bnow as it drifted In as fqst as lj( (feould liave been shoveled out, 
until after the cessation of the stomi, Ther« is no complaint of 
any u^^reasonahle delay of the train before it left the yards, 
there is no neglinenoe attempted to be shown in the movomsnt of the 
train from the tine that it starte from ohe Brooklyn Yards in 
East St. Louis until after It passed Bunker Hill, "b/t it is insis- 
ted by the appelle'^B that the storm was of such a cliaracter that 

the defendant coripaiiy should have known tha-t it could not proceed 
further after reaching Bxinker Hill, and that the defendant company 
was negligent in not unloading the stock at Bvinkf-r Hill, and it 
should be held to be guil^ of neglirenct in attempting to proceed 
further vrith this stock. There havinj^ been no unreasonable delay of 
» the train up to that tirae, and there beinf^ nothin^^ in the record 
* to jisclose or show that the defendant had any knov/ledge that the 
train v/ould become stalled or had any reason to believe that it 
v/ould be stalled by reason of the sno\r storm, it cannot be held 
guilty of negligence for failing te uiao ,d the CL.itle at Bunker 
Hill. After the train became stalled in t^ie snow, it was then im}. oa- 
sible to either unload or move this stock. The record discloses 
that this storm was of such a character as not to have been reas- 
onably antioipated, and it -ii^st *iWW( heeat held to have been 
an act of God for v/hich the defendaiit company is not responsible, 

3andy v. Lake St. E.R.R, Co., 255 111., 194- 

2 Hltchinson on Carriers, Seo, 915" 

Tate v« L'o. Pac. Ry. Co., 157 HI. App.llO, 

Wall V. B.C. & ST.L. By. Co., l62 111, ^^^-^ 


It la unneoeaaary to pass upon ?uiy otluer points raised upon 
this record. TJie Jud^nent is reyeraod and thefttiPkk-v/ill enter in 
the Jud,:nont in this court tho finding of fact tliat th-^ delay v.'hlch 
resulted in injury to this shipment of oat tie ?/as' caused "bgr an 
act of God, Jid that the defendant is not guilty of any nor^llrienco 
in handling this shlpsaent of stock. 

J^ld -nent R^veroed. 










Gen. No, 6079« 

April Term, V^j" Agenda Uo, ^2» 


5'iaod Oct. J6, 191,5» 

184I.A. 324 

Appeal iVora Fidgar. 

?raiik !!• Wood,. 


VS. ( 

A,"^* Slaughter, ot al., 

' \ 
Philbricic, J.» \ 

TniB isk an app al I^aa a ^ludynant rendered In tyg: coimty 

Court of ISdgar Cm)i\.ty, Tlao afeae ^ms ori{;lnally brought before a 

Justice of the PeaoG 'Ifc^J^ar Covmty, from thore appealed to the 

County Court. ?.efore th« Juatlce of the Peaoe, plaintiff recovered a 

Jtidfinent, clofendant api-oaled to the Count; Court, upon the trial 

in the county Court, Jud^aent vras also roadered agalnot the defen» 

dant. !^ora that court a vrrit of acire ff^claa wa« lesued to nualce 

the miretlee vrho eigned tl^ ai:j)eal bond T?ith the defendant uion hio 

appeal to the County Court parties to the ^^d^Jrnont rendered c?e&inat 

the T rincipal debtor. Upon tlio lieoriag on the writ of scire fucias 

issmd out of the Coimty Court iT^ainot the sur«tie8 on tiip Cippoal 

bond, judipaont f»us rendered acialnst the ouretlos and they vro- a risd» 

partif?g to the Jud£;riont in the County Court against tins original 

defendant, A notion v/aa made for a now trial £ind overruled, a inoticai 

in arrest of ju.ifir.ient rrixB nadc and Kdt overruled, coid apToal prayed«« 

to this court. The x:>rayer for an appeal was ollotrcd upon filing a 

bond in the sum of Tvfo l^ndred Dollars and bill of SDCSSldUbnEB exoep* 

tiona within ainfy days. T3ie ax^poal bond ^ms filed, within t.ho tirfl© 

required, but no bill of e^cooi-tioaa appears to Imve be^^ prsented 

to the County Court and tlicre is no bill of ©xoelJtione in the ro« 

cord, noit!:«3r is thor-; any assi^miont of errors on th' record, 

i?or the reason tlmt no bill of exceptions was filed and no aa* 

signrcent of errors ? ixpor: or -ittrtched to the record, thnre ie 

nothing presorved for tjne detenaination of this court, and tho 

appeal is dlsniseed. 

Appeal dlBCiisaed* 








Gen. I'o, 6003- 



A] rii Tsm, 1913- 
Plled Oct. 16, 19153 

i'ig. 54- 

Gertrudo H, Kclsey,-, 
Appellant 4 t 

i*ank U. P tlpier,, 


84I.A. 325 

from BeWltt, 

Opinion \y Thonii\son, J. 

\ ' 
This is an action of firciblo detainer brought liy 

\ ' / 

GertiTud* H. Kel»ey,\ acainst ITrank M./Palraer, "before a justice of .he 

i / 

peace. The Justice Vende-e4 Judgme/t in favor of the plaintiff for 

/ for ' 

pos8e88i«n of the preniiseg and for five dollars rent • An c.p} oal 


was taken from the jud^^iaent of jrhe justice of the pea«« 00 the cir- 
cuit court. In the olrcui4t.=4J'bur the case was t ^leA Toy the court 
without a jury and jud:;mont rendered In favor of the defendant. 
The plaintiff appeals. 

The appellee owned a tract of land In the city of Clinton, com 
posed of several lots arid a parcel descriTaed "by metes and "bonds, 
in all a littls over half a "block, A large fcwo story residence 

stands aboiit the center of the tract. The r.ialn part of the residence 

stands on the west half of the premises and the east jHOBriBcof :he 

house, an "L", is on the other half, but the line bet'^esn th^ east 
and west halyes of said premises had never been located by a sur- 
veyor. The appellee, v/ho lived In the residence, executed a mort- 
gage on the 17" st half of :>he prenises to appellant. The ?Acrtgago 
was forselosed and a master's dsed was made conveying the nort^ajed 
premises to appellant. After the deed had been made under ^he fore- 
closurs procecdlns*, the appellant "by a constable served a ':rritten 
demand on appellee for the possession of the west half or the prem- 
ises:- the part she had secured title to under the foreclosure sale. 
The appellee after the deed w. a made moved out 01" :.iie main part of 
the house, and continued to occupy and live in the "L* that ia on 
the tract still or/ned by him, AP; ellee testified that he has no'c 
occupied the west part of tlie house since tv-e suit was "be^un, and 


that when the demand for possaaslon was serred on him, he told the 
constalslo "To tell lfr». Kelsey to come doxm and help herself "»-"1jo 
whatever 'bfilongo to her", and when the Buramons was aerTOu he told 
the officer the scuao t^iingf. The t ffioer who served the ds:;iand 
for poBSoasion te«tifi«4 that api^ellec aald to him, "Why don»t you 
ooao and ^et it"? "Tell tho lady to coma and taJce her part", &jid * 
that v/hen the sunnnons was serrod that appellee made the same statoiaei 

The only evidence tending to show any person was in possession 
of the west of the premises, when the notice was served, is 
that the constable saw some oows and calyea on the premises, and that 
appellee was sesidlng in a part of the house, but he uicl. not l-inow 
which part. The evidence sustains the finding of Ihe court tliat the 
appellee was not guilty of fore iT»le detainer ifter the demand for 
possessisn was made on him* 

Between the time of the trial in the justice court and the tria 
in the circuit court the appellant sold and convoyed her interest 
In the premises to a third party, Appelle contends tlmt this is 
also a defence t% the suit and the court so held on propositions of 
law. The authorities are coniyary to this holding. Bell vs. BruJini, 
30 111, App,, 500; Patterson Ts, Grahaa, 40 111, App., 399, affirmed 
in 140 111., 531; tkxxx. Daggett V3. blench, 41 111,, App. 405;Hiclcox- 
vs. Armstrong, opinion 3d, Dist. filed about April 15, 1915,, xcl& 
ruling hovrever did not liam appellant since the clear preponderance 
lof the evidence is that appellee was not guilty of a forcilile detain 

The Judgment is affirined, 


. > 


1 . 

t « 


Gon. o. 6010, April Term, IS-U/ Agenda lio, 6- 

Jojin Reploe;le,j 


l-S-4 I. A. 338 

T«* » Ipp^oI fron Coles* 

Toiodo* , 3t. Loui« an<^ Woatom 
I^. Co., 1 

^Appellant- I 

\ / 

Thoiaiiaon, J« V y^ 

T-iiB ia an aotlo^ on tlie caa«, brou.-;]it by John Replo^le 
a(^ainst the Toledo^ St, Louii caid Weatexn Railway Cwapaoiy to roc over 
daoagaa for tilling a horae an tlia 19th day of February, 1912» 
and a aliaep a^T anot}ior tlna. Tho de<llaratlon contains several counts 
and avors in the first a failure on tlio \qx\ of the doftmdaat to 
aaintain fenoas g and in others a failure to construct and thor af e 
maintain at a road crossing^ cattla guards suitable and sufficient 
to prerent oattls^ horses, ajid shsop frora getting on Its railroad 
us roquirnd by i^iie statute* The defendant filed a plea oi' \>he gener- 
al issue ad a ploa of set off. On u trial before a ury, a verdict 
vAaa returned in f vor of plainoiff asae&slng his dar-iap.oo at ;)l^j7.f 
composed of |155 f x" the horse, ^7, for \,]Te alieep and 02*;« &t;.ora<y»s 
' faaSf on v;hioh Jud(7aont was render d» 

The evidence allows that the horse was killod by a loconotive 
of appellant c*>^^-^ oaett abov.t tv/o o» cluck in tlie raorniiv: of i}.\e $k 
19th day of ITebruaxy, 19120 • T?ie eviaenoe ol" l^he ent^inaewp in 
chartje of the loooraotiire is lliat the ni ;ht was moonlight, ;,na :.!iat 
the loooraotive did not strike the horaei but t]iat lie aav/ I'ly&e 
horoG* running fron the south on the 'li l^Tay, v/hicii oross««B oii^a 
railroad, in an at'^eiapt lo cros.-. tlis railroad eaid t'lat Uie riorse 
that was kil .ed ran into th" back end or lie sjb oyliuder on tlic rjijo 
of thp. en^^ine, and w;\8 Icnocked up Jinainst L'le running boctd of bhe 
en^^ino to^or twelyo feot above t^ie {;ri . nd, and broke ^3)G running; 
board .'Uid a test plug tlxus darsacing the cn::ine, Tno engineer, f^o- 
laan and forezaon of JOR Wie roundhouse testiriod ilvxt thern war. ]i.~,ir 
und blood on the running board oi' t]io enQine tlio next morninc ••'^d 
none on the pilot. 


T}i« appellant and two ';thor fanasra tostified, In ■ubn'ianoo , 
that th0 dead horse* was found ton or fifteen feet east of t}ie east 
line of the hl/;hinqr« that tlie horeoo !iad o«Mi al<mS tlie )il£:hr/aar to 
the railroad and the horse that wa* killed had wandered west on the 
railroad a distance of al)Out four telephone poles, horo it ?;ad 
whlued 'uid run east alone t7« track to wit^iin ntxtjt sixty 'or ono 
hunodred feet of the croSQlne» -lioro its tracks stopped } iliat the 
tracks vera jasasured and corresponded with the oMUKireindnt of 
the feet of the horse that was killed} that there were only t}xe 
tracks of one Hofse in that diroction» but troeks of the other Imorse-O 
were east of the hich^Tay on Uie rt-ht of way} that t3ie horse ha* 
"been hit in the "himkers" and the left hip smashed and t}iat thero 
WQV no bruis s in front of Uie hip or on the aliouldor or nesSe. 
The proof shows tliat tliojro were no oat wis (guards v^lmtever at oliia 
road crosainc;. It is not contended tliat appollant was not .iahle 
fork tlie killii^ of the aiisep. The teatimony of the enclneor is 
that it was ao^^nlicht at the tlzaet the oallenditr shows it 
not Boonlir:ht at the tirne tlie horse was killed* It xms a natter 
peculiarly v/ithin the provinee of a jury to find tjis f£>cts frow tho 
confTictinc ©Tidenoe, 

It is ir.alated "by appellant t'lat the court erred in r fuaiiig 
an in.truotion stating, thiit i.: the horaea of ;. laintiff v/ero runiiino 
at large upon t!ie iilgh^roy aiiu that one of said T'^orsos ra« ar'.-.'.inst 
the looonotiye, ther ;Tsy tEumclng it, then the pl.?.int.if,:- v;oulvi be 
liable for Y;hatever 8ul.i ix any the cvici noft shows said iooomotive 
to Iiave ' een datjased. If tlio luooaotive was daLiti{:ea by the "orBe 
running Cicainst the side of the locomotiye ao c.laijiea by the ar-ol- 
lant| then the dcanat^ea resulting zheretvGEi wore not a matter or 
sot off, in a suit to radover 4a;iaf:eB for net-.llr;ently filing the 
horao and 3heop« 

Th.e nature of dekands to aot off laay bo plefc, ■■ '— 

trolled by statute, Leatlie vs. Thonas, 210 111., S^lStx. 2sdl ^46, 

' » # • 

Unda^ th- statute (JIurd's) Stat. 191I, Clmp, 110. Scotiona 35 «nd 

47)/deinand« ux>on aisix^le contract* njjy "bo set ofT a<;aln0t ioiaands upon 

aealad instruiTionts, Jud^rments or dooroesi and the defendant \% caiy 

actioa ui'oucjit on aiiy oontraot or licrsencnt Joavin, ; cXnina or de» 

»a.nds a^;ainst the plaintiff in mioh ootioa ma;^ ple&d tht ttcoao. 

Sot off iB H jropor jjlea In aoouripoit "but ia not proi>«r In a aiilt on 

the oaso* 3iiUtta^Jcor ts, Hoboi 62 Zll*^ App.^ Il8{ Kingnon Vd« l>ra<* 

psr, 102 111., App., 5771 spurgln to. fKSfuao, 125 lU.f Api. 507*^ 

Thsr* ^ms no er-or in rofuainf ths instruct i<nM. OolBi>laint is also 

aadft of aoTJO of plaintiff*s £;iv«& instructions Imt t/e find no cause 

for oon^laint in tiiOBu 

The Jud^qaent ia affirmod. 

A 3? 1? I R If B D, 


f^ . 

''--^:, ^-o, 6021, April T=>na, 1915- | Ae^nda Ho. 12- 

Piled Oct. 1^), 191.=5- 

1 Ada Swltacr, , - _ ^ - ^ 

I .Aprou.o./ /l 8 4 1. A. 348 

TS« ^ Appeal fronJDoles. 

A*A« Honn«« '^. 

, Appellant ^ 



if ' "^ 

[ Opinion hy Thon; aon^ S«A 

Thia la a proci^dlne instltutt|& lagr Ada Swltaar a^alnat 

A*A«llonn| for tlie portltl^ of soma tofm lota in Hunibolti Colea Coun«^ 

ty, Illinola, Tlie orlcima\>lll all^c«<i ^'J^t Uuiy J, Lc?ria dlod 

■\ / 

^ >Ylnc oox:iplalmmt9 MlrfAnda I^t^ and Pannla 6« Aldrid{;a aa her 

only ho Ira at luw^ and that aaoh of aaid partiaa booasia aaiaad of an 

vn<lTidad one third i^art of aaid praalaaa} that Miranda 11 jrtln and 

:inlo B, Aldrldga T/lth their hualsanda had convcyad their inter- 

ta to aaid Ilenni tliat ooin5)lalnant ia aelsad of a one V "rd in- 

t roat and A.A.IIonn of a two thirda Intereat in aaid i-r 

# « 

't A«A«Honn is in iH>3aeai3ion of aaid premlsea and collocting rente 


Tofrvu A dOMurror to the bill wiia filad eind thereupon 'Jis coci- 
Inant a:. ended tha bill in oortaln partioulara# TJie dofondtsnt 
n anawerad eottinc up that ho h^id in tlie lifottoc) of : ary J", 
'la irurchaaod oald jr^miaca from Uary J". L<?f;ia ar.d tht\t sjie iiad 
erxooutod and dellTerod a dood oonveylnc aaldbr^iiaos to rosponciont 
; . denyin.':: Uiat coi2ri:'l.'.'.injmt hitd any intexTtst ilierein, Tho ;unsv;or 
ralBo seta forth tJiat IlaryJ^ Lovla loft surviving Iv^t a fourth 
Oliild ¥illlc« C, LnrriM., the c onpliiintmt then a£.ieri'ied her bill by 
BoJcinc Willina C. Lewia a do fondant fOid aileginc that complain* 
ant and ^illloa C. Lowla were each aeiaed of fin undivided one fourth 
into re at in oaid premiaea and Ilonn of an undivided one haAf inter- 
est, -oef'^ndont nonn anawornd tha ^Jiieniod bill clainlng to o^-n ;.}).« 
fholo of said preniacs and df^n^ins ■'^'i^t corrplrinajit or v;iiii;.,jpj 0, 
la yroro seised of ax^ interest or entitled to any relief. 
Upon a hearinc in the circtiit court a d'croe of parti ion vv;-8 
entered ao prayed in the ra^nded bill. An -.pp-^al Tras tal^cn to tho 
Biip.'cne Court '.'here it waa afxirracd, Dsyitzer vg, jlonn, 2^4 111, 


After the connilssionera , to mak* partition had reported the premi- 
861 IndlTlsible ^.he coxirt taxed a solicitors fee of one hundred and 
fifty dollars in favor of oonplainant « to "be taxed as costs and de- 
creed a sale of the property, 

Tl» defendant Honn appeals from that part of he decree 
a solicitor's fee in favor of ooraplainant to he taxed as costs, .?-nd 
the propriety of thlit allovranco is the only question involved in 
this appeal. 

The original liill did not correctly set forththe interests of 

the parties. It allegsd that complainant was the owner of a one third 

interest, v/hen as a natter of fact the was only the ownt^r of U 
one fourth interest for the rsaasm she liad a hrother Williaa C. 

Lewis who was the owner of a one fourth interest, and v/hom s]ie ne- 
glected to mention in her Tiill, Ths defendant Honn also denied 
that coaplainant had any IntRrest , and while tiat he did not succeed 
in that contention ^vo are not prepared to say he did not raaike thmt 
contention in -^ood faith. It appears that it was neoesary ?or ths 
defendsait to employ counsel in the case, imd it was only after the 
answer of the defendant was filsd tliat conqplainant amended her "kill 
and properly set forth the interests of ths owners of the real es- 
tats sought to be partitioned, 

m The statuts provides tiiat in procosdings for the partition of 
real-estats, solicitors foes shalj. "bo apportioned anong the parties 
in interest, 'here the rir:hts and interests of the parties in the 
land are properly set forth in the "bill unless some defendant shall 
interpose a -iOud aiid auhstantial defenos, 

ait hai repeatedly been held that solicitor's fees v/ill Mot be 
taxed at;ainst defendants, .vhere the original bill onttted necessary 

I parties making it necessary for ths defendants to employ counsel to 
protect their interests. Hartwell vs. DsViUlt, 159 Ill.| 325; 

I IfcMullen Ts, Reynolds, 209 111., 504; Mulloy rs. Fullojr,— 231 111., 

289; Lenox ts. Shian, 7^ 111., App. 53; Stollagrd ts, Nycua, 145 liii 

111,, App, 4-21. The Tsill should be so accurate that the par.les de- 

t indent can safely allow a default to le taken against them , 

T'.e orif^inal bill not having properly set forth the interests of the 

P'-rties and having onitted a necessary party tliat part of the decree 
tajcirig a solicitor's fees is reversed at the costs of appellee- 
I Reversed in part- 

fjtlea B hvxj>^$ 

•X-rislvlLrtt ass 

»(?• « lo iSflwo ttdJ ■JW Olfir air 

tl-^--4Elt#t?'^-i«»«-' -?^ - 


r« no*** t: 

Ef . 



if»« M 


•1 %\%iUtlm 

»-I. -r 


9 iitcf XjM' 


''«Mrn Md #i^ 

.•^•••rvJaJt iloi' 

^ ,a«i 




"^ \ i I 

Gon. 170, 6025- April Terra, 1913- / Ag. lij- 

TUlod Oct, 16, 19IJ 

Char... H. ..xoon;. /l84I.A.349 

V S, I Apv&eA fron Ilftnoock, 

S'lrot national ]|anlc of TAH;irp«, 

Tliorapeon, J,- 

Thle ie anVction on the /aee begun by Charles H. llolaon 
aeainst tho i^irst n«*..ltfimi B-oik oJTLa llarpe to recover doiiacee for 
the appropriation of certain corfl on \ihloh Uelaon had a landlords 
lien for ront. Tlie declaration avera in different counts the lea«# 
Ing of certain real estate Ijy »olson*«- to Gust Strand ; tho possess 
ion of the leased prealaes by the tfnont; the raising or corn 
thereon; a landlord's linn for rent for the year 1910, and tliat the 
dofen ant frai^dulontly took and oold tho com, and coilccted the 
prios and convortod the inone^ to its ovm uoej that the clef ndant 
I frauaul^ntly caused the com to be oold, colloctod jodk the i rice ad 
fraudulently converted to its ov,ti uae| osid that tiie defendant fraud- 
[ttlontly took said com, aold the t^one and collected tlie price pjxd 
lied tho sane on the Indebtodnosa of tho tenant [of the defendant, 
o ploa was tlTC conoral .oouo v/ith a stipulation tliat cuiy defence 
"It be intorposed with the sane effoot ae if siiocially pleaded. 
re vras a jury trial, and a vrdict and jud.-nont for plaintiff for 
^y'yi(^,A-2. The defendant proaocutes thin r^-i-eal. 

The undisputed facto in .he case oro that .ppcllen, IJoison, 
who livos in Pi}:o county, loaaed 280 acres of land near LoIIarpe in 
Itonoock county, to Guet for tho year 19IO, for a oaoli rental 
;sf 01900. duo riorch 1, 1911, . ;;trand was indebted to the appellant 
in the ouja of O3676.2O. In tho f^ll of I9IO, Strand was critioalOy 
ill and mipHJtiLWhi appellant, Iiavin^: no socurity ."or this indobted- 
:, on irovoiabGr .>, 1910, took a note and chattel ^^iortcaGO due in 
ty days on all the property beloning to Utrand on the prenisoa, 
Inc of horses, famine; ii-iploLients, cattle, hoes and 3i;00 
buohols of com raised on tlie prnniaes In I910- On llovoinbor I9 



Strand, v/ho was sickin bed, aotinc tlirou,:;h his son sold a part of 
the com included In the chattel mortgci^e to (^rain dealers, who ^ve 
him a check for $1566.04 for tlio corn. The son of Strand delivered 
this chock to appelleint v/lth instructions to deposit $266.04. to his 
checkin : accotint and endorde the balance on his note to the bank. 
This check was applied i; that manner. The appellant knew tliat Strand 
was a tenant of appellee and that the com was taised on the farm 
in 1910. The app^lfteo had no knowledge of .he chattel mortgage, 
the jooex sale of the com or the application of the proceeds until 
January 17, 1911. The son of Strand , who delivered the check to 
the nank, testified that he told the ba:ik officials tliat the cBieok 
was for the sale of com and the official of the 

bank v;ho received the chedk testified that he did not remeraber what 
the son told him. The vice-president of t,he bank a week before 
the mortgage was cA'v&n made a trip to the hone of Strand to cot the 
nortfjage but Strand was too ill to execute it at thattime. The mort- 
gace provides tliat if the !.:ortgagor sold the com or attempted to 
do 30, or if a distress warrant should be levied on ^he com, the 
bank should laave the ri ^ht to declare its note due suid tal^e possess- 
ion of the com and sell it and apply the proceeds on the note se- 
cured by the nort,^age. Strand was a defendant in the case but died 
before the trial. The official of the bam v;ho took the mortgage 
was not a witness in the case and there is no sKsxadbc direct evi- 
dence as to v;hat arraneomcnts were made. If any, about selling the 
corn when the mortgage was ta::en. Apvelleo teati.^ied that after 
learning that the com in t]ie crili had been sold he v;ent to the 
bank to see the mortgae® and desranded th« proceeds of the sale from 
the cashier and the cashier replied »wo have got our com on the 
mortgage that is .your com that is o t on the place*. The cashier 
of the bank denies raaliing this atatenent, but saj/'s he told appellee 
that Ve ^ould take the conn tliat Jsxxxa. mui there, that the bank had 
no claim on it. 


Appellant contendB that iDecauae it did not itself remove the 
corn, "but only received the proceoda of the corn vrtien sold, tlmt it 
ia not liahle to the landlord, and that the lien of the landlord 
does not attach until a distress warrant is leried. Y/hile the appel 
lee contends that the taking of the mortgage by the bank and the 
sale of the corn "by Strand under the direction or with the approTeil 
of appellant with the turning over by Strand to appellant of the 
check received therefor with the knowledge that the check v/as for 
corn raised on the demised premises, and on \3hich it held the cliattel 
mortgac^e, made appellant liable to appellee for the amount thereof 
applied on the indebtedness to the extent of the rent unpaid. The 
statute (^ives a landlord a lien upon crops grown or grooving upon de- 
mised premises in any year i"or the rent tliat shall accrue during ai 
suoh year, but no specific lien io created or r.iven to any other 
property of the tr-nant, Herron vs. Gill, 112 111,, 247. "Any per- 
son who knowingly by purchase or othorwiae deprives the landlord 
of the opportunity of enforcing his lien is guilty of tort, and the 
landlord has a right of action for r.he damages sustained. Case is 
a proper remedy to enforce this liability, but it inuBt appear that 
the property or its proceeds have been disposed of so tliat the lien 
cannot be enforced against either", 24- Cyc. 1267s Mead Ts. Thompson 
78 111,, 62, 

The cliattel r.iortgage was a lien upon 'che oom and the mortgagoo 
liad the rir;ht to recover from the buyer the proceeds of the sale 
unless they v;ere applied to a prior lien. The lien of the lamdlord 
was superior to that of the mortgagee. The mortgsigor could liave been 
prosecuted criminally and imprisoned for selling the property v/ith- 
out the \7ritten consent of the mortgagee. There is no criminal 
liability for selling hhc com and defekating the landlor»d lien. 
The Mortgagee received the check iror the com knowing that it was 
the proceeds of the corn. The taking of the mortgage from Strand, 
the sale of the oom and the application of the proceeds knowing 
of the landlord's lien, the interviews between the sons of Strand 
and the offloersdBt of the "bank with aJ.1 the attending circumstances 
proved, vfere facts from vrhich the jury v/ere justified in finding that 
appellant participated in or autliorlzed t}ie sals of the com and 
thereby vnpongfully deprived the landlord f of th» statutory lien. 

I It is contended that the court erred In over-niling the oTsJection 
of appellant to the adraloeion of the note and cliattel mortgage in 
evidence. Ihe tairing of the mortgage was a conditional sale of the 
corn to appellant. The acceptance of the check of the c^ain "buyer 
was a ratification of the sale of the com and a satisfaction of the 
mortgage to that extent; anything that was done "by appellajit that k 
tended to a defeat of the lien of the landlord vra» proper and compe- 
tent evidence and there was no error in the ruling of the court. 

It is also contended that the court erred in giving cjid refusine 

The third instructlen Given Tor appellee and the second and 
third refused instructions requested Tsy appellcoit state clearly 
the theories of the parties to this suit. The appellee's third in- 
struction is;- 

"3, The court instructs the jury that this is an action of tres- 
pass on the case by the plaintiff af;ainst the defendant Bank for al- 
leged fraudulent acts tending to impair the security of the rlain- 
tiff»8 lien on the crops in question for hie rent, and, v/hiH in 
such case, it is alleged that the acts vrere fraudulently done, yet 
it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove actual fraud or 
an actual fraudulent intent. If, from all the evidence, you believe 
that the defendant Bank and Gust Strand acted together inh the mak- 
ing of the cha,ttel aortgagn in evidence, and in the sale of the corn 
In 'iuestien .md the application of the proceeds thereof as a payBient 
upon the indebtedness of the def ndant Bank secured "by tlie said chat- 
it tel mortgage, and th^t the effect of this vras to inrpc-ir t:ie sfi^curity 
of the plaintiff Cor his said rent by virtue of Ihe statutory land- 
lord's lien, and tliat in the talring of the clmttel mortgage and 
the apxropriation of the proceeds of the said com in part payment 
of the indebtedness secured tliereby, the defendant bank, by its offi 
eers, knei7 that the said corn was raised on the premises of the 
plaintiff occupied by the said Gust Strand as the plaintiff's tenant, 
and mar;e no inquiry to ascertain whether or not the rent had been 
paid, and no part of the rent -or tliat yeajf was then in fact paid. 


and t}ie v/holo of it has not been raid aincej tiion the aLove ^acts of 
the said Gust Strajid end tho dofondant Bank vrerc fraudulent in lav/, 
and the plaintiff la entitled to recover from the clefondtrnt in this 
oaae a auin equal to the asuniht of th« rent ?or the said year yet 

ue cind unpaid,£U34 far aa t]ic sane is siiovTn by the evidence •, 

Tho appellant's second and third relUsed instruct ions are;» 
2, "Tho court inatructs the jury that it is inotu^bent 4pon the 

ifiintiff in this caap to prove by tlie prepoJldJ^ ranee of the evidence 
Lhat the defendant Barik took tho corn in question or tlir:.t it ordered 
or directed oonie one else to taice tlie corn for it and it is not suf- 
ficient to e titl#« tlie vluintiff to recover, for liiu to rrove 
uliat the com V7a« taken by soai^ one else and sold or disposed of | 
or that thereby the plaintiff was deprived of his landlords lien for 

the unpaid rente, in suoh case the plaintiff cannot recover even 
though it had been proven tlmt the defendant Ba||k conaented tliat 
ulie com micht be sold "by istrafid and afterwarde received the money 
frora the proceode of t}ie sale of the com and applied upon the in« 
dobtednesB duo fron Strand to the Bcnk". 

3 • "TIio Court instructs the jury tliat even though you believe 
>OEi tho evidence thtit, dutnc the time in vriich the ilciintiff had a 
landlord' s lien upon the com in question, the clefhendaant 3vsik 
tool: a o-iattel aoriga^-: upon the com in cri'-f^otion, cnc: t}iat after* 
trarde dirring the existence of tlie landlord' sftltoBBBk lien upon the 
com, the com was sold and t]ie proceeds in part was paid by f^.trtjid 
to the Barfc and applied Jbi by the Bozik upon tlie indobtedneos secur- 
ed by said nortGOge, .vet the defendant cannot recover in thia case 
unless you further believe tlmt it Ijao been proven by the prepnn- 
derance of tlie e-fldence t3^.t the Bt^fyk ordered the corn to bo aold, 
or that the Bank tookie possess on of tJie com and sold it and o.pi'li» 


ed tho proceeds upon the inebtedness duo it from Str^^nd", 

Tno c:iBt of this action is the sale of the com larj the ciroo- 
tlon or with tho approval of appellant \7ith the ]:nor/ledse that it 
was corn raised on a farm of vrhich Gtrand was a tenant of appellee. 
It was not nccoBoary that there should have been aii intent to 
'n^ong appellee. All tliat it t«o necessary to sliow, was that the 

tank participated in, and acted with Strand in the sale of the corn 
and that appellant oeoxired the prooeods on which it had a lien tlmt 
wa8 suToscquent to the lien of the landlord. The instruction nlven 


Br for appellee correctly states the lar. The appellant's second 
^■refused Instruction * sta.tes appellee cannot redover even thoufjh 
H^ defendant Bank consented that the com ini::ht be sold* This instruc- 
tion vras def 'active in not stating that such facts alone were in- 
sufficient to sustcin a recovery. 

The juiy rai.-^ht liave "believed from the evidence the facts to "be 
as stated in the third refused instruct isn and yet the appellee lie 
entitled te recover "because of a request "by appellant for the sale 
of the corn or an a^;^eeae£t for its sale in advance of it boinc made 
participated in Tsy the "bank, A peremptory instruction rrrast not ig- 
nore any theory upon \7hich a recovery may properly "be laatkaxkxA 
predicated. The instructions* were propGrly>»re fused because they sin 
:,led out inconclusive facts as decisive of the case, (Loyd vs. 
Matthews, II9 111,, App., 54-6; Byer V3, ITathes, 120 111,, App., 50). 
Appellant's second instruction told the jury that appellee could not 
recover xmless they believed from a pre-po^derancd of the evi:'ence 
the bank did some fraudulent act with reference to the corn in 
question which deprived appellee of his lien for unpaid rent. Ap- 
pellant by this instruction left it to the jury to determine what 
was a fraudulent act entitling appellee to recover a,nd Kiay not com- 
plain of the giving of an instruction requested by itself, 
?^e find no reversible error in the case, 
i' The judcment is affirmed, 






^^=^ Co 



Gen. i;0. 6J41. 

ciosepii J . linkB, 



April Term lyiS/ Ai;, 2"^ 

Filed Oct. 16, 1913- 

;rTcnl fron Christian 

The iViitiniorc -• Ohio r.outh- 
western :.iilroad "fomnnny, /{ 


<i Juatioc ol tiie ; teice to rtcover a pen- 
alty for alXc'i^cU i^ifacri iiinul^ion/iay tne dcicndHnt in tiie ircit^wt cliarj^ed 
for three Citrs ol corn shipped by pi-iiutilT fro;!i illersviiie to CnicuijO, in 
June, IbJ^, .ind for tue expense of furniohini; six inaidc cur doom. .ai 
appeal was taken Xroiu tnc judt^^uent in the justice' court to tiic circuit court 
wnere a jury returned a verdict in f.-vor of tho olaintiff for i'..4.oJ, on 
wt.ich judgment we rendered on .'ietfeeraber 20, ltl2. The dcfendan.t acpeais. 

TL is contended thn t there .v s error in the •-<drriisf,ion of evidence. 
On the trial a-ocllee sho\7ed by evidcrice tnat appellant ch,:,r4^ed ei^jiht centc 
per huiidxtd wi.i,^iit in car load loti:* frcju o-vaneco to Jjiic-ii^o, for /.•acat and 
corn iij li<Jo and ii^lJ . wiivtiiieco i;. inrtc ii.iled furtiicr fro^a w/iic;;.,'io than 
kiiltribville . Ilie proof xade by a;r:-,ellaiit ahowed t/iat there had been no 
ehan{:,e in rater, on (jrain for five ye '.ro prior to the of the ti-ial, and 
the rates charjied on 7/heat and corn v/ere the Ba.rie . The a-npeliant alr.o 
offered trie scneuuie of ratea for different articles as fixed by tiie .>ail- 

i-iroad and .'arehouae Commission, and th-i.t the rate for ^•/heat as fixed by that 

1 . 

diicrxi.iii- tio.i uiu Licre w.ici no rivror in ita c'.d,.jid3iuc: . 

Appellant contends that t'lf Jud;-;tnkJTjt cvnhuL bs; im.iLaiucd on t/it; 

evidtnce ■.nd ch:. t trie court ahoulJ ri;.v ' "^iructed a vtrdi'it i'or ,- : t.'.l I- n t • 

". ..■ suit ii- ;:roi;t;cut€vi uiider ..kotionti l2'o, i2y unu 12^' of Oha-.tcr ll'i of the 

^,,_^ /^^ ^/^^ rf=-^// -Pf/-^ 
3t ■•LuL^::';?^ oeotioii I2ij ^jrovidoB, if •uiy railroad giiall iwi^zc any unjuu't dis- 

cri linatioti for tha trrtr-.^oi'tt-- tion of •.".r..sKferw»erfc or Ireit^ht ar.or. Itc road or 

ci.i • of the •irnnc'ric s t'lersof, or nton nny railroad oonnectec. thexcftit}! which 

it .".H3 the ri.iht to urje, ine f^-cxinv^ Bnaii ue dssritd .;';uilty oi aavirj,-, violated 

t .;j ".roviiiJiiS of t.uis .-tot. .t;CTiio.'i li;^ ^,i'uvid<iii tuat tiie iJtrsori s>o 

j.\: -•(iaei a^-ain^t jiia^ , .i.or ■s.tori offeiice, rocovtr oi iiucii r.:ilroi-.d tixrcc tiiiifes 

tjic aaoaat of the dasiaties Svtstained hj trie v;;:t,rty a^^t^rtfieved and a reai-onaljle 

att-rne^'s fee t3 be fljf°d "by the court. Gr?iiii can 'be cai'oped froia .illersc) 

Tille to 'Jnica^jO ovtsr appeii;itit ' :^ railroad cither to Vayicrville arid thence 

over t-ic .'*'a"ba3h or to JPana and thence uv-sr the illiiioi:^;.'.-!. .-.xpcllee, 

Tiiio iiJ a far.iier, te;..t,irid ttiat ht; jir-.a fcihi;;&ea corn uo Gliica^j-o iroxi. .viliers- 

villo fcy '=/'iy of Taylorvi 11r for several ycrra a:id triub the r.'ite -/i'-D eifcht 

cents per nundred pound*.' for corn, oatd '-.nd vrneat in car iw;..d iot.ii. Xn 

I'^Oi, he deiiv:.rel throe oar ioadrj of corn to M.o:ii-:li.ani:. -o ,allcr::v.i.i^c to 

ship to *Jjiioa(io, uJiat at tiie time of aaipraent ae iiad a coiiveraation v/ith 

the ajjcnt rejardintj tiiC rates ana t/xfc a4;ent told iii.a t/ie rate waa eleven 

ana tnree tentiis cents, that ae tola the a^^^ent -iie had siiicoea before at 



elt^iit centB and ne would not pay Uic rate asked; tixut ne asked the agent 
how he was shirpinij and he said by t'ana, and appellee retailed he had always 
•hipped to Unica^iO by *ay of Taylorville and had only been oiiaPi^ed eitjht 
cciits; that he w.i.8 turnint; it over to appellant and he would not pay more 
than eight cents. The agent of appellant denies the conversation as 

detailed by amnellee, but fl'iys arnellee told hiin the rate wac ei^ht cents 
from Taylorville. the evidence also shows that the rate fixed oy t/ie 

Railroad and /arehouse Coiamission is hi^jner for wneat than for corn, out 
the rates fixed oy tiie Joxiuui^sion are not concluuivo of tiiiu c;^ae, ijinco 
It only fixes a /uaxiiatun rate and tiie law does not require t/ia,t railwcaya 
shall necessarily cnar^ie the Conuuission' s rates, but laay ship at less 
rates -^rovidinji they do not discriminate between ship-ners. lifiiaet Richter, 
who operates an elevator at Uwaneco on tuc line of appellaiit'e railroad, 
Wiiicn is tnree miles furtner from Onicajjo tnan illersville, testified 
that he Giiitrncd wheat to Chicafjo over ^^ricllant .Vtxilroad in 100a, at eigiit 
cents ner hundred '.veiijht; that ^pr>ellant made no difference in the rates 
for wheat and corn and that tnere iiad been no onantje in tne rates for 
five years. The proof also siiows tnat aooellec was onxy charged ei^nt 

ccnta per nuadred wei^^/it fur corn iro... ...iilert3Viiic to •J.iicaj^.o aincc tae 

u .in.aent involved in tiiis auit. Aripeliaat did not ixitroduce in evidence 
any puolisjicd 8cnu4ulc of rates, ana dia not undertake to explain why dif- 


ferent rutee .vere cnarged and collected Iron -xnoellee or that other -cartiee 
were Oii.irt,fcd txie rate wiiicii was Ciiart,ed appellee in l^Ofe, but oade proof by 
the ai^ent, tnat he did not know of any other pirty beinti chartiCd elevt-n a,nu 
three tenths cents t^er hundred and that there had heen no change for five 
years. .iiile the la.v requires, in a suit to recover a at itutory penalty, 

tliat tiie appellee muat prove his cause of action by i. clear preponderance 
0f the evidtticc, ve are of tiie opinion th:it tiie verdict and judt^inent are 
•U3tuined by Uie evidence, and tnc court did nut err in refusin^^ to direct 
a verdict for appellant. 

The judjiiaent was entered on Jeote.-abcr 20, Itl.l. -.ppellant on that 
day prayed an appeal and was t^iven forty days within v/jiich to file an appeal 
bond. Vne appeal bond «-va filed and approved oeptc:nbcr 26, 1^12. ihe 
itatute rovidcc for r.n attorney's fee for the party a^ji^r ievei, in cuitn to 
Recover dai:i'v"eo in this claos of c?.scs, •i.nd thjit tae court oho.lJ. iix the 
attorney's fee. "his laattcr -^ao overlooked by a'^-ellec nhen the Judgment 
iwas ttitered, and on .ovtiubcr 7, iti^.,, at tae aai,ie teru. of co^rt at anion tae 
4ud{j,i!ient .vas reuderea, appexxee .aade a -.lOtiua to del asiUe tae judiiiaent and 
order for aopeai, and for leave to nuike proof of Um value oi trie attorney'. 
fees. Xiie court heard evidence on tne value of the attorney's fees and 
entered an order setting; side tae order for an appeal airid allowed an 
attorney " e fee of ,40. Tne a^^iellant excepted to tne order and a^jain prtiy- 
ed an, /mien <vaa allo.ved on filiuj^ ^i^ -jpperil bona in thirty days. 

It is contended tht\t tVie court erred in setting; aside the order for 
tyie appeal and making;; the order taxin^j an attorney's fee as coets. hile 

It is the ^ienera.1 rule, that tnen an appeal is nerfected the jurisdiotion and 
eontrol ol tiie court below ceases and t/ie appeal oeouiaea a stay of all pro- 
eeedinijs, yet it was said in Jrit^^Q v^. ^unnc, loo xll. ^u. "It is a 
familiar rule and one well underotood, that a circuit court luay, ur^on a xiro- 
per showing durin^^ the term at which a jud^jfaent or decree is rendered, modify 
'or set aside sucii judi;:acnt or decree. in other words, durint" tiie term of 
court, the court iaas £rce power and control over itc orders and judi;;aents, and 
fthey aiay be ..lodified or set aside urion a r^roper Bho%vin<i as justice ;iiay re- 
;quire. If the court hns rio'.7cr to vcate a judt'jment or decree during the 
tcrLi it is plain that the order vacating the judgment ap-nrovini; the bond •.-yas 
one vv'it/iin tae jurisdiction of tue court, .^nd after taat order was catered 
appellant's appeal was at an euu unlei^b a nev/ uoiid Siioald be filed .vit/xin 
tiie ti:ue iiuiitea a;/ Un. court". iiiis ruii/i^ wae foilov;ea and approved in 
the late cast of -inkelateia vs. :;yons, SbJ ill, 27. /hilc the motion 

by a'-pcllcG was ooraewhat infor.-nal, the effect of it ,-...d to v.jcate all orders 
and roceedin.^s cuosequenl to tne entering- of tua judi^ricat and tnerc .Tas no 
error in taxin(^ an attorney's fee as cools. ;he judtj.:ient Is tjierclore 
af f ir;aed. 

f firmed. 



^ ^' 





G-^n. Ko. 6<H5, April Tej-m, i^l^- 

Agondu No, 30- 
Filed Oct. 16, 1915- 

'■""^ '• Xlaxeo- / 1 8 4 T .A. 3 7 5 

^'S, ; Appftijd fropt Sholhy, 

Wiljij^ J, F(kJy, t-.4 Rl., 
Appollanty,, .. 

Opinion "by Tho:;ipoon, 7, / 

On March 30, 1510, Tronk S. Stairw&lt o Shelbyville, was 
t.he sole OYmor of tm uninoorporated Inauranoe buelnoss, vhich was 
run undor the nam© of the Kaakaliia Lift Stock Insurance. On that 
day he issued a policy ol insurance to plaintiff for the sua of 
' ♦14-CO,, insuring an imported Belgiaa stallion of the value of llJOC, 
in the sum of ^1000., una a grade etallion in .he aura of |400, 
The policy wtvs to run one year. The Beleiaa stallion died of iocl:- 
Ja* July 31. 1910. On Tabruary 15, I9II., Stairwalt sold his in- 
surance bus in SB to uefendants by a" written contract under which the 
defendants asai^^rd and a^-reod to pi^ 1,11 lo^^ftl ftlf^lma a-ainst the 
said insurance buoinesG. This evlt vxks. brouf-ht to recover the intatr- 
anco averred to be ^luc T:y reason of the death of ztxU. otullion. 

The declaration contaies sever-. 1 ct.unts sottir^^ tip ir; dif- 
ferent w-sys the conducting ana ovmcrship of -h^ businear- 1-" r^ 
walt, the application in rritins ^or ir^rurj.nce-, th« pclioy, the 
death of the etallion, the reiving rotioc of the doath, *Vc r.rf of of 
lose, t}ie 9a3Q of the bseinees to defendants, the prcnise 3b3C .f 
deffvndants to ^'^.y the cle.ln of plaintiff ^.nd the -ailuro tv= y^j^ tho 
:cl.-iim, A plea c-f the ,::eneral issue -n'.: ecveral opcci.»l picas .vcire 
filed. The e-jcond plaa av-rs the ezoc-ticn hy the plaintiff of 
*n application in vriting for insurance; :.hat the plaintiiff v/arrant- 
•d the stallion to be in a parf-:5ctly healthy condition xv^ll knowing 
th£,t the statement vma false und thiat it t^as made for the purpose of 


induolng the Issuing of the policy u.Ttd that tha policy wa« iesued 
relying on said warranty, and Ihat "by roason of the premi«Q» th« 
policy Toecamp voirt. The third pica aver?. tViut in the ^rittan appli- 
cation ♦••hf? plaintiff ot.itcd t at tho stallion hftd nch Tsecn aick 
vithin t'.T^'lyo montha proce«(iinn t?^-' Cat - of the application, -.liioh 
strit«^Tn^nt plaintiff trarriinted to "b- true, and " that the otaiiion 
had hcen aiolv- -within ttvelve nionths proceeding the dutc oi' the apijll- 
cation, vhloh. faot -m^ known to pl;xintifr unO. that the policy va«» 
1 CT ed 'Without notice of ohe proct^«dlng eickaoss of rho stallion una 
in full r^flianoo on ..ha truth of the stutcaftntu oozitainOdA in vhe ap 
pj. lent ion . The fourth plea further avers chat the stallion w&b 
affected v'ith t* nisaadft of a recurring nuture called " Soro3« 
cf nMoh plaintiff h\d r^otica »n ) tlxat trirouch chi» n-ioana locii-Jaw 
TiVE coritr4iCt<id and that at the t,i:mf of the ieaulng of '.he policy 
Stiiirwalt was aninforrsad of jfuid iriporf<?ct condition and relied on 
the warrittity, that th« stallion was in a healthy condition add free 

from infoction. 

The fifth plea aycra that plaintiff in the application prouiped, 


that during:?; the life of the policy, r.he etallion should ha t^ell earJd 
for, and in case of sickness he ahoula reoalve the care of a "♦^S"'" 

Totcrin;*ry aurgeon or the heat casa whd.t plaintiff could procui'« and 

that thliij aKrne-tat'nt v/a» GJade '^ pa-''t af tho xjolioy, &ntl aver 3 thut on 
July 20,^ the ataii^ion 'b^icaiiiu sick and disordered and vhi-t plaintiff 
had knowi&dg«s 01* a&ici condition, ana thut I'or tan aaya noxt. following 
iPlaintifi' utigleotcd to fvirnis;: care, by xdnana •. horeof the stallion 
diod. Iveplications v,crc fixca aonying anci « in avoidance of 
tha pliiij.s. On u uriea, c jury returned a. vercilct i'-r ;i-1000. in favor 

Of the plaintiff, on whioh judf^t?nt 7/&s rendered and the d-^fer.c'^^-r.ts 


Two defenoea are attempted to bo ijHterpoaed aa reasons ^/hy 

the appellee la net entitled to coll ::ot the insurance on the istallisp 

Ion, One is that the eppellcc had v/arrented in his apiO.icatioa for 

Inaurance, that the horae had not hen sick «'it.hin a year prior to 



thr ivprlloatlon, and that ho hy.d teen &ffllotod with Biunraer Bores 
and piiTftphonxsie. The io thut he had not« be«n properly 
careid far after synptcae of lookjau h&4 appear edt 

The policy contain* the tv,o fclicwing pftra^TRphs: "This cortlf- 
Icat** la "buaerf upon atatnrnrrta misrie in ap; iicatlon Tor in*:urance, 
and v;e iSJmll not tx? Sat llahle for .loss \vh«re it oan "be conoluoively 
proven ihiit fruud wa» practiced to ohtain ealrt l^i-mrance or whore 
prorifirty jnanrad vms naglccted '^Ithftr "before slcknops or aor. id«nt or 

"Property insured "br ub ia protected o^alnat Iosb "by death from 

:.i 30^36-— ^vhex. uLl clue care hi.\a bCi^n taXcn to save :he. llfo of a«.ld 
anirual or anisiolo'', 

Ationg ^,h« q\iifistion8 and 4inBwr« in the ax'pii nation, iriunber 15 is 
''Ita.e ihd aaiirifil or either of oh'sa b«cn aiok ^'ithin the past twelTre 

.;th8, i* ao \iiifin anc what waa che niiturc of the ■'» IseaBet Ana, JiO", 
.••wu the conclusion of ■:'b£ application iutlie folj.oi-fing;t "I her«l?y 
aj^ree that aaid a.ninial cr s^iraala shall he 7»«11 caised for ana not 
neglected or aToaacioncd or sxpoe-'d tu darigor", "t have Tfan ;.Via fare- 
(/.•"ing »pplicai.iori» n.f\tu fully unUorstano the aamo, ajic. haV'' aaswcrcd 
all Iho Tor agoing quoBiione, and " v.airant wvj «i*ui»iijfcUlnoa6 ui auoh 
answer B^ and ii is unaers^ood that sh^ula ihis apiu-icatlon "be accept- 
ed and policy issued, ^hat it is oone solely ujjun the represeaia* 
tiona herein naia«d", Sh*? policy proTidos ohat iha api^iicatlon ie 
mads a part of the contract of ineureuioe and a copy oi" che ttppixoa" 
tion is attached to miUL it. *'Unaer the head of false atatcHi- nt8|i 
n r:ieot, to*, the policy rocitea: "it is proYided that this cer- 
tifioate i« based upon the atataanliliB made in uhe application tor 
Ineuranco, ana we shall not bo liable f.^r loss \vhcre it can be con- 
clusively proven chat fraud v/as practiced to obtain said inuuranco^ 
or v;here property insured was neglected ^?ither before sioknesa or 
aociaent or afterward*. 

Appellant contends that the questioiwi an., answer a v/ore Vf-arran" 
ties while the appellee contends that they v^cre represent at ion 8. 


In ineurunoe con\iraot« & repruacntt^tion ii* c>. otu.«(^>ffi(jnt relating to 
a t.i&tex'iul Biutuor uad ii» only requlr&d »o "bQ aubatantiully truu, 
while a v?arranty auet; Toe iitiraliy trua, lff<orr«int,ia» unfctar into 
ana are a part ot iihe contract while reproacntations ar© mere indaoe- 
nentB to it. i^imieaota LiTo Xntiurunoa C'>.» 7a, Link^ 250 111., 2'/5 
The application "^liile it warrants i-rna ti*utlif*ulnsBtt or th.o anawora ;ct 
yet, It concludes, "It ia understood ^liat should Uhis <4pi:lica;.ion 
be accepted and policy iosuod, that It ia donn; solely upon ihoi repra- 
aentationa herein nuif^d", 'lh« ianguugo ox an upplioation «o noke 
the atatom-mta thorein warrantiea muat be so uloarly and unacuivo- 
oally expreased aa to leave *v.he court jcs no other alternatire, but 
to oonatrue thelBatatiimmts aa warrantiea. If the language employed 
is awbigioua and doubtful or if th';re la another reaaonable contdtXM 
atructlon that nay be placed upon it and thuB avoid tha oonsrqurncea 
of a warranty, courtd are inclined to adopt the latter constriiction, 
MAnneaota Life Ina, Co., vs. Link (Supra); Houlor va, Aiaorican Life 
Inc. Co,, Hi U.S. 555'^ Contiuf-ntol Life Ins, Co. vs, Rogers, 119 
111,, ^7A-, The appiiofttlon itself stating that ^should this urji-iica- 
tion b-? accepted and policy issued that it ia ..jne solely upon the 
repr«=!8entation8 tatixsj herein named, «A court v/ould not be juslified 
in holding t>ie atatntn'nta to be warranties, ^hcn th«i application it- 
88lf statue that they are repreaentationa. '>j.ot»e Lifo Ins, Asso,, 
vs. VafjfTJjner, l8B 111., 155. ^br- ootrt corr^tly held that the 
8tf3tn»ji<??st»« v:er« re present at i one* 

Th^* flvld'^nce showa that appollaH is a farmer rcaddlng n-ar 
Litchfield; that about IJsjcxxjstBLJbeTUttfx the roldcj-a of Karch an a*'>3nt of 
Stiarwalt, nafisd K:irk).>atri<dc, called on plaintiff nxi.t\ eolicitsd the 
inmirance on the horses, but the plaint if ftF having; insurance ?.'hich 
did iiot expire until ?^^&roh 30» nothlr?5 wna done at the time, oroept 
xhat '.firkp&'-rick exarainecl IJiy jjtullioa f^nd nn:^ rfhit? epota on it 

aru-i talJj.'^d aljout thnm. A f'^'v '^^.jn Int^r the Trrltten applJcaiior, 
vf^<9 Jiuido out by Kirkpatriok, Hr writii^j t>5e ansri-'Cirg In ^ho t.pj.lica** 
ticn ?JiJ2h T.-hich was algned. by plttintiiff. The- o'.aiilon had "bsftoii in 
tt hoapital in Ootobcr, i9C9» <^here it r^ao Iroutad Jor aiiEir or eorei; 
and piiraphonosis. I'iaintlff testlflnd '.hht la told Kirki. ick, at 
t.ho tiro* he o:wcjin3 d the horec and aa* -lis tyhita spots, tibout it 
Ix&viRg bs'ij; in a hcajjital ana trti^.t^su for :iv.'iBiDoi' aorao .ci,'} v/iat, tha 
agont s&id *«tliat '^on't i'.jr.ount ty anj- thii:^^"?* Tiii a^^ont in E-;ply to 
question! put by oounsei tor 4«:ion«ant(B,^«ther piaintiff £^tcut 
Baroh iO, 19^0* Jit^'^ toid him the fH/ia«» }iad in a hcaj^ital an<i 
had siiM'ier sores replied, Ve» I think ho aid.- no, I nsssrer hiid vx:^ 
information that this horse had been in the hospital", ''Ijld he 6*y 
that to you? tfo Sir, Z think not entirely", 

Sevaral veterinary surgoons w- re called to testify rsgardir-g 
the suKTier sores and paroi-honioais with -which the horse had bcsn af* 

v/licted. Dr. Bandy testified that he found hiaa in July, 1909, suf- 
fering from paraphoinosis; that this was a swelling oX the gl..nd 
cau&ed by a blow and that he had no constituticnal derane>;'^a5Gnt and 
woujd not be considered a sick horse- I>ootor8, 8itrain« Bandy tind Jen 
kins teatllied that a horse suffering with sunaaer sores v-oui-j not 

' be considered a sick horse in the sense '.hat that expression is or- 
dinarily used. Thf» evidence of the appellee is that about ten days 
or tvfo weeks before the d ath of the vorae it had been injured one 
of its hind feet, ji-nt at the edge of the hoof by aatohing it b tween 
th"? door and sillof the barn causing a sore "about !.hs size of a 
quarter" and h^ notified nothing the natt^.^r '?ith the health of the 
horse until tho raomlAg before it iied. That raornin,* seeing that th') 
horsa nid not eat as uau^il h" called a veterinarian ".ithin an hour. 
The jury were Juntified in finding a verdict for the plaintiff for 
the renson that appellants failed to t)rove oith-ir that the appellee 
made any material misrepresentation in the appi-ioation for the 
policy, or that the horse was not properly oared for after aspnaptome 
lOf the disease which caused its death had appeared. It is unneo- 
•ssary tc discueo thn refusal of the court to rive the iBstruotione 



MS^iotl by appcajaits on i,hs iiUPBtlone oi" vvarranty, ^or the n9a,»on 
t)ait, vihii.t h&» been sbld, conocrning thi? policy tind ApiUicution xi^gi^t 
ap JLiea '.o th^' fiUoeticns ruised on i,h*i in£vi,ruation8« 

All whc- cvit\«nc« eliows that t.h« hore^i vms worth I'roa ^1^00. to 
^1|;00, Vlieti the inauj'cijnce policy *uu iosued app« lict jjuvc his 
noi.0 ior $;i^x,00, TiUit note hu* not hetm i.^*, but appeiiunts Iautc 
noL fildii any plea ox" sot off, hence there vnn no error in :-h,e court 
inetrucuxng the jury that if plaintiff wae entitled to recover the 
verciot ahouxd b;; ior ^1000. 

There beinf; no error in the oa-!* the juci^jment it* affinacd, 

A 3? y I R n I': 7), 











Gen. -■io. 6Qij'7 . 

S. Ho;ner Tolly, 


\pril 'TeTiri 1'jI?. 

Pil/d DotoTifer- l6, 1913- 

Afi;. 3t 


The Milliki* National Bank- 


O-oinion "by Thomti^on, J» 

Appeal froi.i uacon, 

184I.A. 3 86 

Thia is cin a.ction in aDoumfsit rought by 3. Homer Tolly against 
the iiilliken National Bank to recover vlOOO cliimeci to be due as comiaisaion 
for servicjc'S o£ plaiiitin as a^eal eat^te a4^t;iit. .. trial ..'aa aad before 
a jury resultinji in a yerdictr for tiie defendant on wxiicii Judginent was ren- 

dered and the riaintiff a^eals. 

It is contended that the jud^jment is against the 'vcight of the evi- 
dence. Tiie defendant owned two hundred acres of land near Asauja^ton, 
Illinois. The plaintiff is a real estate af>:ent residinf;; in Jecatur. J. ... 
Brownback w^s the cashier of the defendant bank. The cashier of t)ie bank 
and the rslaintiff met one Sunday evenin^^ in the latter -oart of June, 1910, 
on an interurban car. Tjie plaintiff testified t/iat tie casnier told hi.ri 
If he had any one he wanted to Liriow tiie Ibtnd to, ^ie could siiow it at vfl& 
per acre. Tho evidenct; that tiie pxaintiff knew that other agents 

'Were tryini^ to sell the land for tne oank and asked lor an exclasivc agency; 
this tne casaier refused to give and said the aian that comes with a buyer 

Jirst witn his raoney gets the farm. .0 other terras were fixed at that ti-.e. 


Witnin a <Xny or tj*o tnereaftcr rlaintiii showea the farm to J. j, , '«ri0ho, 
oT Charleuton, who offered nlaintiff viiS r)ttT acre. T;ie next day plaintiff 
told the cuBhier he oouXwL find u purcxiuacr ut ei^^iity doij.ars. Tae oaahior 
aaid he could not xoake t>i').t price without tue direction of the other offioera. 
Later tiie Ba:ue day he told nlaintiff t)iat if they could ^ot. CoO caah the 
bank would be willing to let it fjo rvt that. The cnsiiicr teotified that if 
the frina wau sold the banl: wanted ita r.ioney, but would carry 10,000 on tlie 
f&riii &t a lo9 rate of izitcrest. j 

riaif;tiff tnen wanted Uu know ii Uic bam; t»<>^ ^"^<^ rent for tiuxt 
year how aiuc:i vould be required to be raid aovn. The oaa.iier told hiui i 

|they would re-^uire l.OOi) caah do/n. The plairitiff ti;en >»'unted tae b^uiV to 
[take a nott lor l;ie uiOOO, the cashier refuoed to t^^ke a notf- and rtlaintii'f \ 
Waiitca to know iiow ioni^ Jie could have to raist, the .'lOJj. ne cuoaier 

btold ni:r. Liey -lad another rros^cctive buyer; plaintiff then aakea if tl-ie 

vjoulJ hold t]ie farm for iiir-: until the next rr*ornin,^;. The otiicr buyer 
fered a check and contr-ct thr: next .lorning, )Ut tae b tnic held it orien 
If or plaintiff all tiic next day but he did nut co;,ie in v.'it:i eit.icr caah or a 
c tract and the b ink iioxd tae f ar ,. to L.*c utiitr -arty. i'ue cvii^nce aho»a 
t.. I t.:ie defendant acteu fair ,ixt,.i .Aaiiiti^f and pluintifi'o o-;/a evidence 
»ho.vB tiiat he concealed froia the bank .inU never diu diyclooe tlj.Jt he had an 
Offer of <*d5 per acre. The evidence ausitains the veraict and judj;rjent. 

It is aaoiKned for error that the court erred in oustainirit; an objeu- 

tion to H ciuectiuii rat to plaintiir'a proapectivc puronaat-.r; .'ere you ready 
uble and v/illinn '-o coT.nlete tiie "^uvcnii-ne of tnia Inrm w^on the teriDQ you 
nd Tolly had tulked ov»:r.- rtia question CMllei for -x concluoiori. The 

itnaau auioaia iiavt been uoicea i'or tae i'acta and he waa thereafter xjiax-^ 
mltte.l Lo tell iiir, financial condition .•^nd all the attendinj; f;4cta. There 
no f>rror Iji t.iio rulinj;. 

Jt ia -vlrio contended the court erred in i^ivinf^ md r^i'uainf]; 
instructiono . There f^c rjo ■ rror in in ..tructiotjo iriven Xor def oxidant 
' tJie Jury ^cre fuxiy instructed lor ciaintiil. -o review tac critioioiae 
w of the inotructions woula nut aerve aj.Vj' uaclul puraoiic. The .jud<.;iaent 
is riffirned. 
P' Affirmed. 


SW^ iki^f. 

Theodore C, WARDFN, 

Plaintiff in Error, 


Defendant In F.rror, 


1/4I.A. 427 

f.ifHOR TO 




Pla\lntiff in err or /brought »uit In the yvinlclral 
Court to r«co^«r for n<in.ftg^i to hiw »utoB.obili9 ^uicu ha 
clcilBiad were dc^e by th«/tiCri»« of ci|tt<!.nd<iR?^ In 8rro| tisat 
hart run away, be«|uu»«.it haw been neftll gently left in Waeh- 
ington Park without bein/j securely fastened, »« reviuireci by 
th© or'Jinanoee of the City cf Chioago »ntl of lh*5 Swith Park 
Coftrci^elonere, The oa«« wa« ♦ried by ^hn court without a 
jury, r;urinf th& trial anrt before a aetcrftinsit-ion of the 
c««e by the court, nine |:rcroftltlcn9 w»re RubB.itted by pi-in- 
tlff in error to th« court to b« held nn th« law :.vrj iio;:ble 
to the oasfe, Tne r«if;ord iiftrfc j ra«6nteri recrFtee tnsit "the 
court r«fu!»ed to jujirk t^-ny of tha flnainge < rw^t-nttt.i by pi--in- 
tiff 'held* or *r«f u«eti* cinri declined to act on therfi". 
The court tiien found the ^•rti;«!fl for d«f«n;litint in error ami 
entered jud^^rnent accordingly. 

Section 61 of Chi=j:ter llC, R, S,, trhioh h'ta bft«n 
exfreaaly aiiorted by ths Vunlcivai Court «,« a rule of j loctioe, 
irovidee, in part, (;» rolio??e: 

"Upon a tri&l by Xua court either ps^rty Ri^y, ^^ithin atich 
tiRiC ft« tnt* Govirt ctiy rftquire, to the ccurt written 
r roj;o-jj tlone to hn held f;f«, la«? in the .ieci8iO!i of *fie caee, 
ufon ?hich *n<h cor.rt flhall ir/rite "refuaed* or 'h^^ld', aa he 
.^hsH be of opinion i« th« 1^*^, or jiodify th«? «ai»;s>, to »?hiah 
t^ithfir r-Tty »3'.y rxce-^t uft ♦'o other oriniona of tj.ft oourt, •♦♦••* 

The .-irbi trary reMisril of 3 ccurt to K£rk |:rorar 

propoaltion* of law pre««ntert in Mire in r«v«!r»ifcla frror. 
?-^inn v» Lt^urne.^. 195 111,, S02j '»;faf?t»?rn Y.iJve Co. v, '^ftUa. 
127 111. App., 055. 

5?©v«r?tl of th« propositi on« pruiiented in thl« sunt 
tinnoiino«d lh« law to be that proof of the violation of an 
ordin^ncA resulting, in nn injury ««tsbli»h«« a rriRR faoio 
case of neglignnce on th« r.>»rt of th« on« violating it. They 
announoe a oorreot rule of l6w aiplioabl* to tho CiiRff una 
•houid have been iR^rked "Held". In the abncnce of h ruling 
on th««e rropo»ltion« it l« impc«!?ibl« for thin oourt to nay 
whether tne finding of thfi l-nniclpal Goxtrt th<«t dftfenviant in 
error wan not guilty vhh baeed on a finding thr.t the evideno* 
of defendant in ftrror wan euffiolent to ov«rooice the r-citm 
f«oi» oa»?«i on M finding th<-%t the eyid«snc« f«iled to anow a 
violation of an or<Unanc©, or cr an «]rron«<'oue holaing cv« to 
the law. 

If the oaee wae deterreined nolftly on a finding of 
fact, thfc-t finding could have jfretHi s-olght in thi« court, s^nd 
the judgment *ould not b* rev^rwed unifesss we cculii »»my that 
the finding waw manifewtly yg.iinat tWa weight of t.h« <»viw«ince. 

For the error cf tnt? J'uniclpal Court in reli^eing to 
mark either *h«ld " cr •ref\ned* tht; rrorc<%Ji ticnn of l;:^w r r«- 
eented by flDtnUff in f^rror, the juigacnt of that oourt is 
reversAd and the aau»e is re.Riiinded, 

Berch Tsrr^, 1512, Ho: 
r.74 - 18.U4, 

a nori-oratlon, 

PUintlff in ktT or. 





Defendant in Frrf^r. 







\ / 

A «^aft»t«r 4f plaintiff in error, 'iriving h tea» 
of two horatu lHti>*f«d to a ragcn loaded «H:h rtr.proxi«,ately 
9,G0C rc\u)de of iron, turned iile teatt acroaa thft atr*»et car 
tracKe of ciefenaant In error in front of a atreet onr *hich 
be saw af:proAOhinE at r rate of speeU froe ftcven to ei^nt 
ailea an hour, near the aidfUe of tho ftlook, and not at a 
etreet intoroection, and viriouf'Uy eatiui'sted at frorc 4C f^et 
to ;--:t50 feet ;il«tant, Thts cienVdftd ?reight of Uio eviuynoe 
tends to nho« the. car «fs« not Rcre tiian 60 f««t asuy fviiftn the 
driver utteai ted to cro«« tiu^ truok. Th^ ftvideuce fairly 
tcjKis to Bho^ that tli« p.otcriJjan injSifeaicvtely rif^plied all tne 
u«\ial pMiana of stopping tna oar .;nc! yilsso r-; filled -?:hitl Xuo 
v!?itnft!5«ee CfUl the "re-^ftrae'*, bvit wkk unnblft to etn*. ivaly 
stop It until it coilideci »ith thfi wfif,on snci dim^g&d it to 
the axtftnt ti,-;t it noat :^.5B,35 to rftr':iir it. Suit was 
heftun in tht* Vunicir-l Conrt to rfiGCvsr thin >iatti»ge un4 m\B 
trie4 by the rjourt 'vithcut a jury. '^he court fovnd the 
iBauea for Iha ^JefendJ-lnt in error ana entered JudfiB^ipnt as-'ainst 
ths ir,lilntlff in error "or costs, '^e ar^ -if^ked ^o rrrverae 
this Judgnjent Ufon tuo ti.eoriea, ho?,r. of f^hich .;»ro b<.t«ftd[ on 
a a.isconcer tion of the l;"iw. 

It la fir?«t r.cntfindiJci <f/:>t nontr Ifcu^ory r,fi;-Ji5«fice 

- 8 - 

0^ the plaintiff In ;.n action for nft.r;ilgt5nott tss not. a defease 
Wii«re the (iefendant by the ex«jroiae o' ordinary oaro o< uia 
hav0 r*voidtd the injury. The settled Ian in Iiilnoi*» i« 
that whare the nspilpono* of the plwlntiff contribute*! tc 
the injury he oan net r«cov«r tmlen« th« not of th« ciefendant 
result InK in the Injury is filirul. C. y. & V . Ocal Co. v , 
Morbn. .^iO 111,, ©; C. 0. Ky. Co. y. C-.n«vin « 73 111. A^.p., 
81; Webb v. C. C. Ry. Co .. 33 111. Af.j-., :>S3j Wifiry.bicky 
V. Ill, steel Co .. 94 II U App., 4C0. 

It H n«xt oontenil^ti that the judgnjent of the 
trial court iftu«t bo rov«r«ed v»hen it i^-^ oontrury to tho 
greater weisht of the evidono**, nnl thnt it I* the duty of 
the Aj'pellate Court to carefully aorutlnlxe the «vid«nce 
for th« purpoRe of detorRining 'jhere the prt;pondflr»noe li«a. 
It i« 80 fteil a^ettlaU in Illinois th.-^it It ou-jht not tc be 
nece li^ary to cite -iuthori tios to ^-jurport thB prof or. iticn, 
that th« finuing of a jury or :* trlKl court ^lil be ^et ^^siiie 
by the AppcilAte Court Alien anu only vrnun it i-^ clearly .r,n6 
ttanifostly contrary to tho vvwi.^ht of tite aylctonce. Done I a on 
V. gaat 3t. Loujg ?^y. Co .. a'if) 111., B?-Si aee alno '.ibout one 
hundred cj-^nfta cited in Vol. 1, 111. Cyc. Tig,, rj-^g® 449, 
title •VBraicts", 

The fact tn-'it ui;on cloac ocnft:ider?.tion th« weight 
cr f'r»*ponderanoe of th<? «-i*l'i«nce '«culd seem to un App(»lia.te 
tribunal to be contr:i>;y to th# v^srciiot 1» net ^^ufficif^nt to 
wftrrant a reveraal of tha ju.tKii.vent. C . B. A Q. R. H. Co . 
V. rvre/rory. 58 111., .372; K. C. 3t . H. F. C o. v. Kattr^rfl . 
85 111. Arp., ;5ie; afflrtned in iaf> Til., "46; ^-<':^t CI-Jc^;j^q 
3t. R. R. C o . V. l«vy . 83 111. A (p., 30:^, Hffiru.ed in 183 

in., 5r.'5. 

This rule re^tf? in tiie ;i ;.imcl Ztnd fajr,niar rrif'Olr;le 
that an appellate trlbuml in net in a» i^vGd a pOf?itlcn to 

■a} ti'A(>iii 

A f ' •- <iF O ^ ■'' 

»»«■/ . /_■ 

^ 'iU U»ft... , 

i ... .,,' » a r t 

- 3 - 
judgtt of thK credllsillty of th« wltnft^-sea or of thft weight or 
oonvlnclng forc« of their tflpitlti-ony it* the jury or th« trlul 
court before whoic the «jitnonft«si have ki[ j «»ar«d nnd testified, 
Prather v. Runnel, 78 lU. Ai'p., 458, 

On th« queation of contributory n«gligeno« the 
dvicienc« in thin oaoe ^ihown srithout ocmtrover«y th-»t the 
driver of the team in qtiention cl«libcrately turned it aoroaa 
the atra«t c»r trwok in front of a at,r«iet car th:5«t he aaw 
approaohlng, Tr.ero waa » conflict in the ftviaonce i^n to ho^ 
far th« car *£»q fro« hiiu v»hun he turned icroao t.i;c traok. If 
th« tertti&ony of ♦ho driver whsi to be adopted aa the truth, 
the car naa from i^OO to 250 feet v^way. If tne t««;*tiRiony of 
the ttotoraan and f't is;».nt or« other -^itnega xft«i correct, th» 
cor wae net acre than 4C to 60 feat awsy. It was for ♦:h«! 
court hearing thn evidence withotit a jury to aeteraine vehether 
the acta of UiG <1riv«r st anJ ju«t before the ccHiaion ^ftre 
«uoh aa ?30'aid h^ivfl ba«n Indulged in by an oriiim»rily csireful 
and irrudent porson under tLfi »&»« or aiBiilrsr oirourii.^tfinceo. 
The triiil court upon oonfiideration of th* oviiUnoe mui^ a 
i^enersi finding of not gtiilty. It a.u<»t be f.r«sKtai*iea U{;cn 
thi3 record th.-it this finding ??a« bnoed either on tnc ffct 
that tht evidence ffdiod to fsho* due care on *h(> j^rt of XhQ 
ariver or nef^ligence or; ♦he part of thors«? ofer^s t,in.«^ ths iitreet 
o&r. If it failed to ;-^how either cf t.hcr^« faoto, the finding 
waa ri-?ht. In C, U. T. Co, v, Jucobaon. 317 III., 104, th« 
Sur-retoe Court said: 

•If tsaoBsters, generally, Kc^y trlve aci'OvJS ?^tr'';«t Citr 
traci;8 Ijfetwevtn ^trct^t intr.rsecticnfii knovifinf: ti;-!t a oollision 
«ill be inevitable unlesp tim oar If? atoned, av.d in- 
tending tc ttske precedence over the cur and comral thc.^e in 
chjsr^e of th«j car to ^^top it, thK riF.hta of a street car 
uc-apariy on it« trooka linJ the gfin*=ral traveling public 
-.ould be invaded ;;nd rraotiofilly cieatroyeid. The law doos 
not ;<?riiit ona in nuoh a plicft to :'rlve in the p^jth of a 
B'.oving rjtroftt car, relying nj on thO'')« in charge of the oair 
to stop It and protect him frcjt inj^iry." 

,V tAaiJgtl'^ 





anil aid* 

V t^P t^ tV 

- 4 • 
In SuBir- !•>{!: II V. "IJLkie. 138 111, Aif., 510, the 
Aifellata Court aiidj 

■^e kno^ ot no cwwe in vrhich It h»B brfm held not to 
bfc contributory nwtUiiiftKC© fcr a to«R3ter to drive upon a 
street C'*r track between «tr«fit lnt«r«ttCtlonft, kno^inj that 
a oar is cc:>«'-lng tovurtlw lilm en a»ich traok :aK? tiiat a oolli- 
Blon will oocur unloso th« car Is interred." 

In Healy y. 0. C. fiy. Co .. 163 111. App., •'■33, 
the covirt aaid: 

•Even if the comJvct of the KOtorman had baen n5?gli?,«'nt, 
that wovjld not have oxcrjead the deceased froit the ctuty to 
oxeroiB© or;iinciry oare for his c^n -jafoty, and that he 
oertjiinly lid not <Jo» lUi «sk thff oar oonlnf; toAar'J iiixt 
ut ri vU stance of not acre than one huncired feet >»iia ".t a 
'good speed'. Ha had aBfltt rooa; to j?tay wherr, na ^vaf» or 
urivtt east on 39th gitrtjet an;l b': ^yfa, Ncta^lth.^tanciing 
theae fact*, he ..ittllberutely turned aoroes the traclt In 
front of the Oiir, ona ifJia injured, an hfl s-uat known 
he inavlt^bly *<ould be, urafefs? it-e so^orjican nhould be ;ible 
to :}top hi^ car in ti«i« to sv«*rt It. 

"The ©vlilence, Instend of 3ho»»lng dnc oar« on hi^ r^rt 
for hla own 'jafety, shcwa thft R.o.'^t reckieaa ais»rej!J^.r;3 of 
BianifRait danjjer, T* v^old be h;trd t© ccnceive a ftt.jte of 
facta shewing ffore do.: rly contributory rj^^^ligenee.* 

An exanilnation of th« «vi IfeRoe in thifi oas® forcee 
us to th« conoiueion ti.:it ♦he .iriver of the* '^g<gon deiiberste- 
iy dr«»« in front of th« car »t a tlEie, il^oe uad tutinn'&e tnat 
Bju«t h«4ve n.iide it svi i,«ntyi, unJe-as tho-ia in ciKtrt^o of 
the car ^ere able to wtop it, h aolli^lon i-culu likely r«~ 
«ult, that he relied on *.hf7JU to «top It . nrJ protect hie: 
and the teriit. ami 'va^fon frcs injury. '^(j think a finding 
thi.<t the fl.. Irttiff y-'isi bc^rred froia a ripht to recover because 
of ^he rttfi^llgence of ^tin ;iflver w-hs? fully ?»arrantfeci by tno 
«vi:i6r.ce. >i<Jitner uo«tt ths? evirience nuo^ negligence en the 
rnrt of those Cferuting the? c-jr, Cn a like state of facta 
tiilfi court, in H&..ay v. C. C. Hy. Co .. 163 lU. Apr»» "^3, 

"There waa absolutely no eviJenoe In this crt»e cf ;vfty- 
thing to indicate to tju-i ^firvanta cf fl»ii;el.iHnt the 


- 5 - 

deceased wa^ about. t,o tntn iiisi horne to thft »cut.h and d4riv« 
aoroas the track until he rtt.urtftci to Uo «o, -ind thftn tnc oar 
vran oo oloae to hlns th'it it w.<3 iKpowaible to «top it In tii&6 
to avoid lh« coilieion, The aotorcu^n 'Jum not bound to a«su»?ie 
from the fact that the hori?e wn.i nagon were fttanding; rumr th« 
track, but out of 3 in© of contact with th« car, th.^t after 
he ftuil iiji^roaonod wo nenr thv?t it would ttm i&j; on«Ubl© to 
ntop the car, the ueoeaaed «oiild w.jdvlenly turn hi« horae and 
ftttttuiFt to tJrlve acrcoa tLK ♦ rc^ck in front of the i^i froaching 
oar. "©jjligeno* c>4r!not b© ift,iuted to tha tLdiotiur-n on tJiat 
atat« of facto." 

In C. tJ. T. Co. V. Browdy. a06 lU., 315, the 
3urrCH;e Court »aici: 

"K«ither nan ♦be reotorKan requlr«d to aasjuwe thwt whan 
his ottr ?rfiR t-;0 nenr ?.h« hora« 'ind «?^if.on to TTjjiit hie; to 
stop hla c?ir hefore it woujd ?itrlfc« t*St^ f<$.ugon, the Hipellee 
'3ff;uia avjd.iftnly anJ n-ltfjout not io« -isrive uj-on *Me tfeick. He 
w»3 only fc juireU to oj^r-ite hia ocir «lth rftfer^^jice to p<'ril« 
which r<r»u«»onahly i^irht hf. axr «iQtad to occur. To r8;,uire hin 
to riiO hia car ^Ith ©uch caution q« to jUJ^rd ae«irj;»t unusual 
or oxtraordinriry pftriln woviid be to rftvi^ire hiK to ao oj (vrr^te 
hi« Q^ir as to } rcv«nt th*» jrSiOtict.1 offtration of tne road," 

The judgment of th(ft ?^»V-nioiral Ocurt Is, Ih^v^fOTB, 


"• .y 

•' .r^ nl 

285 - 18325. 




/ -' 

RAILWAY COMP.'NY, a oorror/t4on, 

Arirellanf . 

/ / 




184I.A. 430 

\ / 

This la an^^appeal fro» a judgreerit of the Superior 
Court for |1,0S9 for rersonal injuries, AfjelJee was em- 
ployed by the PwnnaylvRnia Railroad as a track laborer. On 
the day in q\ieation he w»9 at %ork on a track kno^n a» track 
Nuttber 4, lep.dinr, north from the Union Depot, and then b«lng 
uaed by .appellant in «?iHnx up a panaenger train «?oon to 
depart on its regular run froBi that depot. He waa an ex- 
perienced track laborer and had been for several atonthe work- 
ing in the aaae general locality ^^rhen he ivas? working on the 
day in cttacstion, ani »a>s tnoroughly fuKiliar with the gurroun* 
inga. In n>aking up the train the switching crew >ith a 
awitch enj'vine had puahed into the train shed nonnected "^Ith 
the depot on track numbftr 4, wever'il raB^enjer coaohae, uni 
left the», had then ^one out on that track on to another triick, 
and had coupled to t^«o or tur«o ^«il or ex; reaa coaches vjhich 
were also puahed ir; on th\« track and oouj led to the faflaenger 
coaches frevicwsiy i. laced tar.reon. In pushing the ji^^'^enger 
coaches in on ^-rack 4, tmi in ,;Oinr out aft«r tr.e mail or 
express oosichee uad { unhing thew in, the switch tiafine fUjioed 
over the npot on tue truck ^here >:*ireilee ae^ working, and 
in each inatynoe it waa neoe^'^^ary for afpellee to, ani lie did, 
atop hi« vi-ork finrj «tep aaide to r-tvoid beinp, run over. When 



ic: I 

50 /<, 

- 2 -. 

the wall or ex- rc3« coaohea were puahed in nn<i coupled to the 

passenger ooaohee, the ewltoh engine atopped within 50 feet 

of where aprellee wae working. Appellee's i«iork called upon 

hlB! to stand between the rallB to ferforirt it, l^he.n fha l-iBt 

coaches were pushed in paeeed appellee, he did not imaodlately 

reeiiiTie work, but stood »atohlng the engine. He knew it iruat 

eventually cowe out over the traok where ho van -working uid 

expected it to iio no soon, After watohinR it aa it atood 

atill on the track 50 foet south of hioi for v? he thinkn 

wae about two minutee he reaurried hi a work. As he did 80, 

he took a position betwesn^i^ri^iilo of the tracV on -'iiich he knew 

the engine auat run as it cawe cut of ^.ut: train shed, v^ith his 

back to the engine. Ae he worked he t^hs in a b«nt poaition 

with hia noad the fartherst from iha engine. As^pellee thinks 

he had be^n Eit v^ork about five minutea when his co-lc«borer 

called to hla to look out, -u)d he saw the eni^ine approaching 

ani within a few f^eet froa air. He juicped in an Attempt to 

get out of the '^ay of tha «n??lne, but did not sucoeed. His 

co-laborer tft^^tlfied tjint tne enrine struck hia in the "riucp". 

About tne ouire Inctant his co-laborcir took hold Cf hin^ and 

dragged or aeiRistad hia froft the trr-icka. In '^oae. /fay not 

made vary clear by ttit' evx.lence, hi^ log r;un broken ana no 

wae otner^Biee brulaod, H« and hi^j GO~lHborer both testified 

that they did rict hecr the bRll on tne enr'ine ring, and they 

both testified th',? •»:hi?3tle en +iie 5?Mr;ine was not Bounded. 

At l«5aat four '^Itnep.aes for ajpell.>nt te^jtlfied tnat the btJll 

was one autoinat ioally operated ^ma that it woti constuntly 

ringing from the tlii.e the engino .-^tJirted t.*? rtcve out tcv«,,:irde 

arpcillee until aftar he .va?? atrxick. Arf.eXlee •fin?, in the pcs- 

aesialon of all hia aenaGS, He had jxod hearing'. He ai^b off 

duty becnuoe cf the injury froK April 8th until Jvily 4tn of 

thf; saite year. He R.ade a f?,ocd rec ovary and the bro/tt;n leg 

»i1* ;90 »e»1l7Xt ':i 

aoi tw9 9if ^B 
no'iu bnii . ^ 

-r'.y-i .>,/ iiia:s 9tLi Una*' ^b Qf mid 

ao XX !> 

J TO b< 
4)iO-ttf 9Ai tn» XXh .,;a» wn 

- 3 - 
l0 afl good as ever, except in ^toray weather, when it paina hi*. 

There are two counts in the declaration. The 
first count charges thot rorrUant was negligent In operating 
its enfine at a high and dangerous rate of apeed, but it is 
not contended that there is any proof in support of thut 
charge. If appellee is entitled to the judgment obtained, 
It »u«t be under thB second count in the declsiration. That 
count charges the negligence of aprellant to be that the bell 
on the ensrine was not rung or the whistle fjounded before the 
engine wur etarted or wnen it was being run out froK the 
train 9hed. The wanlfeat weight of the evldenoe dinproves 
the charge of nef^llfjence in that count. 

Appellee In the first count of his? declaration avers 
thut while he "was vrorklng as aforeeald at the tift.e and plctce 
aforesaid anU was in the exercise of nue ccsre and caution for 
his own RBfety*, he waa injured. Tn the aecond count ha 
charged in respect to hl« own due care thut "durinp the tin.e 
that eaid locoaiotive enpcine rerr^ained standing ara aforesaid, 
the plaintiff wai working upv-in paij tr?J0k9 ae aforesaid, J*nd 
wae exfirciainr, due oare and caution for hig o-^n safety". The 
tnjf f iclsncy of tbe2?i« avfern-ents of due care is In no way ccn- 
tested here. It la verged, however, that *ixe jroof clearly 
ahowa thiit appellee wa? 'niilty of such oontributory neirligenoe 
a» to defeat a recovery. The prcof $ihov?0 thj^t truing, ours 
and sni'inee v/ere fcslnp: fre<iuor>tly conveyed over and near to 
the rrecise point -."here- urypllee wa?i at ^^cork, and that he knew 
thHt at any moitent, fsOKe of the'?e n,oving object b «(re li.'ble 
to be uj.on him -ind crush hiirt to aoath or as'.ricuMly injure hiro, 
unless he 'jaa cion'=itant3y on ^ ne Klcrt, lie also knew that 
vhe particular onrine ta.>t t u^^^eci in on traok 4 the Kxcreee 
or R.iiil cars rcu^t noon pj-cceed north :'-;v>in ani paaa over the 
identical apot /.here he -sas working, yf:t, if hir, story i!» to 

i)%» «1t: 

srii • 

:d« at if 

o: .-iaii* ;*'- 

- 4 - 

be believed, he ignored all theoe known faote and cJangere and 

deliberately snd heedleasily placed hiuiself in t.he direct ram 

of thia engine tnnt was not 50 f«et anay and with his back to- 

warde it, taking no precaution for his o^n nafety whatever, 

and relying entirely on his attention being directed by the 

ringing of *he hell on that p?srticular engine, although other 

eni^'inea ^vith other hells ringing were iriCKflntarily fanning and 

repassing hi» on :idiucent tr?icV:«, proceeded v^lth bin work. 

Such oonduct onn only be characterized aw negllgenoe cf the 

grossest cr*araoter and in our ju<if:iBent wo a the prituary cause 

of nia injury. Under then® circuaistancee he can not, and 

ought net, to be allo*»od to call upon others to recoapenee 

hin for injuriee h« would not have miatained. If he had ex- 

erciaed the eli.'^hteet degree of oare. Wilgpn v, I. C. R. R , 

Co., £10 111., 6C3; C. R. I. A P. Hy. Co. v, ViUoT, irii> 111, 

App,, 26; Bt^:lt i^y. Co. v, Sk egyp ozak. r:^5 111., n4Z, 

The ijudgu-ent of the 3ui«rlor Cov;rt is, ta<irafcre, 

reversed >«lth a finding of facte to he incorporated in the 

judgment of this court, 



^e find ss» ultimate facts to he incorporated in 
the judgment of thi?i court that aj-pellunt wi«*5 not guilty of 
the nei^iigence charged in eitiser ccunt of the declaration and 
that appellee wa?? j^uilty of contributory ner^iigence that was5 
the froxinjate cauae of tae injnrit*''^ coKplnined of. 

v4 v^daiJuo SC' 


. jz:^^ ?; ■ ■? fcafcic 

.1,1 . . , .^ . . ;> ,w _ . ai OX" 

£99 - 183.19. 

vs». I ccusI'y CCORT, 




nF.LIVlCREr Ts\E OnitlON Cf '^'HJ: COURT. 


Thia i» hn <H}itAl frfifc a Jiidpitent In th« County 
Court of Ccok <Jcunty in an aciiion o.f replevin brouf;ht in th»t 
court by appell^int to reoovfr from i>;feil«^e two *af,ona levied 
on by Cippeliee, a bniliff of the J unicipal Court, n» trie 
rrofftrty of one Ann# M. Loach, by virtue of i^n exacutlon 
i«eued out of tfrit oourt on ^i Judgisont in that court sigajnat 
her. Rule 19 o? the Appellrite Cfdirt of the First fist riot 
irovidcss, in rurt, aa fcllcwRj 

•In all casee, u r.:rty hrin^ing a oau^e into thia oourt 
8h?;.ll furnlflh a ooR,rl«te afcpt.ract cr wbridg;jtent of the record, 

•Tho libBtract R.u?»t be pjufficient tc fuily f.resj^nt ev'pry 
error and exceftion rrUied en*****," 

This rule lo^v? not fSsvure th« r«.f:rO;lu«tlon of ti'.« 
record in haHC ver^a . f«ftitt;ftr tic-ea it 'luthcriae c» ih^th index 
of tne record. It^in» ji;«t •jfiitit the lan^Mnff.ti ie!pliv:«, vir,, 
t;;At th«! 3ub!^tance of the record au^t be /riven in the ■^bylrnct 
in .la fe* ^orda ^>« A>iil '.yrr-.^rey to the court all t.h«* factf) 
nece*'3J.iry for it to V-no*, in order *o dfttfrK.ine tne as^rit?! of 
the crrcra cojapicined of. Thfi ti.uttfsr rcot..:ined ir. tj.c rwcor^l 
ahoul^l orjeiir in the order in the .'«>>?» tract. If a bill 
of exoertlona i'^ (:xrt of the rt^cord, t^isre sh-mlti \ni flOicethini", 
in th^ ^bntrftct to indicate wherft it begins .na shrrs it ftncia. 
There- shruld be a cnr^ifioate of ^hc tri':;! judge at the on<S 

. - s - 
anci not in tha eiiJ'Ue cf the biU cf «xcretion»» nr.A it Rhould 
00 arpftar in the sbatract, The«e things sre npoe^.^ary so 
tnat the Arr«ilaie Court c-in eoe frocr the ah«truot and without 
readinp. the entire record 'Whether thu tsrrora oompl^Jlneci of 
h.ATe bfjon oo»ttltt«(l. It ium been fOintod out ijjatn smci ugaln 
by tfte SarraB'A '^nci Aj:|;;«liat« ccurtR of this state th .t unlent 
the errors coffflsinad of aprenr froti, wn insiflotlon of the 
ubsitrsct th« Jiidgnent .h? iwalcul fron. >¥i]l b^:; a^firsied. The 
abatroot in thi«')' cjisfi vlcliite* oub<»tHnti illy evary n>J« of 
thia covirt in rc:.>tard to abatrttcte. All the abstract «how« 
of the coiMk-on la* rocord ua to wh*it the ieeueo werts in tne 
oaae ie +f,ti foiio-irinE: 

"Dccisration of rl-'*n^iff"« 
•PlMntiff'a iiffiaavit of C writer an I p. 
"Def«n.iant, Thos, V, Hunter •« jrlea." 

Thi t 13 no Btcre than un intlcx anci nothing wh^itevsr 
can be iVHthered tharefroR; no to -.sii'it I'^sueii /jere forrced vrnd 
trj«d, Tnifl so-cailed abstract *rh«r© it is B:ore tafc.n an 
iriJiflx of ♦hft record is in (tOst In^^t^noeR an unabreviated copy 
of it. There in rKjinxnc '^^ it to initiate ^Lcjce thts bill of 
exoertlons h'^i'ln^^ aniA thfi cerHficate o) <-he jui^e that "for- 
iiUauch «« the aatt^^rfl! '^Ncve ^et forth do not ftijly ifrci^r of 
record*, etc., -ipfarently j^rii^^s to thR c}«;rkg or co.-.aon law 
record us »iuch af! to that | *».rt of ths bin of •'jxcfsj ticns thftt 
preoedes it, FoIlO'^ini^ t!)i3 a«rtifrcittj of thtj juagft, there 
is printed in the oo-oniled -.ib^^^tiiot what urpe^nrsi ♦c be a 
coRjplete copy of oert':in piterH t:j;;t are n.;«.rkfid *^luintiff*ft 
Exhibit A" HXid "Plaintiffs K%hihi^: B", but t,,fr«; i» riOt::ing 
tjiti;re to iJhow vvhother th<is in 'truKfintB tfiere copied 'oars intro- 
duced in evlwi«noe ci not, 

W« Right well affirfc tr;i?? iudgcisnt for "innX of a 
{Sufficient inatrROt, r.nd perhaps ^e fshould do «o n« b le«=«on 
tc thoae -vho shrill rrftpar© Phstri^ct's in the future, but ^e 

- :i - 

have ocfioluded *o go tnroigh th^ record ourftftlvea and to de~ 
t*?rK.ine the anii» on tt* rfttrita, 

Th« record it(?<5lof»«» r^ d«»rntion in »-hlcla it. i» 

3l]ft*?.9Cl that tfte defendiant (appell«« here) en June 7, IQli, 
un;juni;ly took ciml h?ia since ^-.hfr^n unjusitly dett^lned the hootlii 
of the plaintiff (arp8n«nt here) in oontrovftrt^y . It ;a?!0 

is dlncloead that tht aoffe'ndant filftd in th« County Court lii» 
siecia' I'iea 'illftj^lng in ■apt for» t4;i>t the yrorv^rty in miea-. 
ticn W..3, on ,1x1110 f, 1931 » thR proj^^rty of on«, Anna Lf^«s«hj 
tL=«t on thmt dny he "wnat a b^iiljff of tho Munioipal Court of 
Chlcwgo Hn« fi8 fnuch bailiff then and th&rrt had in his h .nde -m 
execution innued on ?i jmigRent in «ald court af.jsinat ti*i^ said 
Anna Leach, and thfit by virtue of the ex«ciiticn fi« took the 
proj:**rty in que^itlon* 

If .»ny .replication to +,hiiii » l»a »r« filed, it ia 
not rre^srved in the record. TiiRrg i.n, hoviever, a rooitul 
in tbft record ♦hat "i^nufi bein>; joined « trial by jui-y la 
waived r.nd ^nia 0ifn;8« ii aubr-i ^t*i.,i to the conrt for ♦riil v?ltb- 
out the intervention of « jury," Froifi thi'? rtxi. tal i\ stust 
be r.rpflumed that a general rerlloatirn r.;;n filed to the ri**^» 
and inaoKuob aa all th«? o^Kkt jfifsterial uv^.T\,itsnXn in ta?^ F-i«a 
were adKitt«dl on Xma tri^.i tc be true, tarit th«* innue *ried fc>y 
the OQurt 'swa'J ^hcVuat tn^J r)r--3!>i,^rty in rin«?f«tlon w^^f? the < xoperty 
of Anna Lo.»ch. 

The unnontrovt-.jfted rroof i^hows l.hrit th€^ 'nu»;c-n» 
replevied «er<s oririnaHy the prorarty of Annr* Lwach; th.^it 
!Sh« flr«t obt;iinecl poaBecsion of t.h«E'. in 1904, and thi*t rshe 
retjiined poi?«es*?ion of thsjt frou. th:;t tiR.e until r-xi-.&llnci took 
thtj 3viR.e on the tiXisorU. Jen '^.c^t iip in ids i is-wi on ^''iiy 4, 
1^>09, Ann& L<?ach r.x«outcd a ■fiicrtj?,ag:e to one, J, 'S, Lf^ch, on 
certain peraonal px-operty, incrUiding ths^ waf;i;otsa i^f\- ltevi«Jd, to 
ascure the [-.iyRtint of tX),400j tu:it on ?-H»y 7i2, i3C9, J. W*. 

« i n 

** %"■ 

av>iJ*>&*>AU ^^i 

9 9A^ 

i ^i% 


fJSl^ fc' 

- 4 - 

Leach gavfl to k reliant « r-'Mox In fcr« a bill of aale of tke 
r-roporty. In *hich pnrflr it l<? reolt«ct thftt on tnn vsry day 
tho itortg»{je frou; Anna Lcaoh to J, ^, T.dch wa«» fix«ou<;«d h« 
fftlt •hiii.self InBeoure nmi unaafe*, ;;nri iook po?»3©J«alon of 
tfift ; Tor-erty, awl en l«ay Ufl, 1901>, aftor (giving iiotlo«, sold 
thfc «aK.e to arp«ll«nt for $?,4C0, Thaa* rRCitalu arp. net 
evi.'icnce of anything a« ug^lnet ai'! e'^-lee, .snd there i« no 
evld«flce In th*» record that J. 'f, Lcuch ev«r forsclcfteci his 
ftortgage or that he or afpenHnt or ftny one e.l»e, oxoef t Anna 
Lfiitch, over had even »;ojr.ent»ry f offwea'^lon of th« rrojerty on 
K.;y 4, 3009, or Kay ;?C, 1909, or at any other tlrr.e tifter cshe 
first obtained It In 1904, un+ll i* *rftfl taken ^row ner hy 
arpcllee on hia exeoutlcn. Aj pellant yit] testify th&t ahe 
a.-iw the jrOf«rty on Iff-y aP., 1903, c-it the rl^'^oe of bu'^lii««ii 
of J*nna L^aoh, f-r\<] tr;t;t <*he "bought It in* on that day, out 
neither ^'he nor ;>rty onsi «l'»e t«*«tifi«d '?rho aolci It or by «hat 
'Siuthorlty it wqt noid. A;reil-"^nt tr'.?itifi«d th.^t 3he 
•roortgr.fed It back thj;.t ane-e. A&y*, J:«nd aliso, *I If^aaeti i t to 
I. each", ?^hen the f.^yftr llftntifled by h<^r c^e the 2 easts ra^j 
Introducod in evidence, it turned c-)t ^o h««. « vrier Bi.-^ned by 
Anna Leuoh acknowl^darlnp thut ahe hi^d leftpsetl the rropftrty froe. 

•;t-ll.'5nt i:r.d «f>'ting; c«jt in jetcsil *tui 1- rEfs of Mic iensing, 
but It wiiG not islfned by ajf f^slJan*^^ , Ari;<5ll«nt alao t!^fitifi«d 
*nijt 3h© gav« J. '^. Lf^ach t£,40C In CA«h for thf? projf.rty, and 
that be l8»f>i.iiate2y f?,S¥e the oa-ih back to h«r ami sjhe g«v6 him 
a B.crtg-,:fi:e on the-; ntmn fjrCj"«Jtty purohased, to <-?f)c:ur<3 hl»< rof^d^jJ^^nx^ 
the Identical money pcld fcr it, ?chich h-vrj-enf? to b« the Iden- 
tical siiRount of the n;crtgfifre which "^he ^o-caJied bill of aule 
recite* v?t*i? fcrftclcaed, bocKiUfiK he?, s>n fsort^.iigg^' fftlt iiin^^elf 
•uniRiife and ln;^sourB,'' On, Qro«a ?ixa!rdni<tAon ;>|.r"2'li»r** ^'^^^ 
ttsXed, "And yow g:Hv« him a Riortgag© then, ^o his r.aased the 
BBoney to you an.i ycu fa»9«d It back to hire t-.cok -; Kortj?age - 




fia;f ic 

Uit't €»•' 

- 3 - 
la itut rights* ani ^no rerli«<^» *Y«;b". Whether tlio ftiCtd 
«.r«? that ai-tellftBt gave J. *. Leach |;;:,400 anJ iiired lately 
borrowed it back, or th-»t J, "'', Leoch ;;av« sjr«ilwnt 12,400 
f;nd 8h« Immedlatejy p^av© it baok to hiw, *hf' net is 
*hjt J, TT, Leach J^tni h.^lci st n.crtgag« for th* auBia ai&ount on 
the, aattie rroperty he did befor# th« trtif)B»etion *ith ;ni.ellant, 
and thst the prof.srty still r«it.3ined in the i o»»«e'^?loi» of Anna 
Leach <hff aaiee r»r«oa who had pC3rt©3»len b^iforo the triinaaction, 
Tx.a only UffiArent change in th^ aituatlon being; that, ay. reliant 
clalaed to be thft owner of tho vrofrtrty, Without ^iaborating 
further on the evifi«noe, it l>^ K.^nifftst thU t'itsrcs i» ro can- 
petfent ftvldeiioo in this record, even tending to sho» that Anna 
Leaoh, »rliO oonoedealy brcase thft o».ner ami ro<?«e»aed of ine 

roxf.tty in quftsticn in 1904, «ver Fft*'t«d with ftithrtr the 
titifc or the f083ef.»!lon of it; tnat J. ^, L<«sch ever soi*i it, 
or that nj.fellant «3ver bought it, ^t y feortgj^ge aaJe, ot- tiiat 
"StiC evar had it in her poseeasjion. Onti«r thcsse oifctiaiStsncea 
the rf«»u»|:tion auat r.revail that the owni?r«hir of /.niiiii Lti&cfa 
continued anci that thft pror-?^rty was hsra at the ti&e ;;..(}■ «=ne« 
took it en execution. The ^ticigB-ent of th« County Court k^s, 
therefore, right on th?? record ficre r-rasentftd. 

Arpellant cowpJ.'^jiRa that f.iu, ecvirt erted in refusing 
to adKit in s~vi;i«jice the tftoorcJa ?i!*i . filea in ."i auit 
between the «affi« jrartie? in vfhich ccuinaf-l * cr .it-eilint ci;iiB,8 
the ti^le to the nuE^e r rcrerty >'?a5? involved, ;.ht3 tljat it was 
adjudged to belong to H^pel;^int. Tr.yre is nr.thin:? in the bill 
of excejtion?* in this caf?« ■^o aho-^ thi»t tta c-mrt ftxciucled the 
offered evidence. "Tuia clsiletfid error i3, therefore, not prft- 
aented hsre for rfiviei*', 

FSniUng no error in tn^ record, t:he judgment of the 
Cr-unty Court if, uffirR^ed, 

I^rcii Tera, ^....j^ ijo; 
536 - 18376. 


corf:orst.icn, P. R. ? JHI.Y, 
rreoilcnt United )U? ile 
Aireuoy, .md E, E, HUnHF.B, Secre- 
tary United Veronntile /:7oncy, 

■Km OR Cn!RT, 
CCOK Oi^imTY. 

/184I.A. 433 


\ / 

' ' / 

The "United X^f:rc«ntlXe Agency", a c^rroration, 
F. H. Farly, it,n )-re»li«»nt, /nd £. E. HugheB, it« atfor et.';^ry, 
a>re the ai^^j.«ll«ntB in Vhl« ocne. The by-la«» of th« cciv 
r-cration contain thft foHoissing r.rovi*3ion»: 

"Sh;-*re9 of the oarit:»i atock rciy be t.rt>n<?ferres5 by en- 
aoraert-ent of the coftificcite to ihe •secretary for cancitl iaticn, 
whereuron t^ noir certif Icate or cffrtlfictites .=»liall ii^ue to 
th*ii trr.n«f«rfte or to hi« written order*****, '^Ug, ^ficrelHry 
••***^h.'ll fSfiJce full of the tranf?for« of -.f.ock in aoccrd..r>ce 
•slth th« r.roviglons of the by-'. owa, ***♦*". 

Orfft ^lIliiR C, Brysn h^^l'i ir h^^ niir.© an-' cini&ed 
to o-.^n SCO sh.-jrcj of *h*5 Oftrltiil «tcck of the •.■;pfe31nnt 
ccrpf>ration. A crsr* t float© for i'>QO of those -^ o'' «*.<xjk 
waB, in pn^rt, 9 fo^Jo'va; 

■Tfii3 cf:ftlfi«^a th:it WiHi^n: C, Rry;«n is the tr.'ner of 
7*0 Kiin.trftd ■^Jh^irfi?' of thr^ rref<^rrf5d Cajit^il Stock oi the 
TTNITKP lJrRC;'''?TTLF AHF'^CY of thft Tixr value of T<*n Doilnrw 
(tlCOO) each, fwlly r;^iti rsn.d non-aj'-^jefsfrable, trsinnfer-.ble 
only on the bcoka of ' hn Af.enoy, in jT'-rficn or by ftttornf^y, 
upon aurrenaer of thin C^'sirti float©,| f-rly ervJor^ed, *♦**•* 

Cn th« back c^ thi^^ Of^rtificatfi -^i^ rrii^ted th« 
follo'^-irvS blvnk, t? bo \;.3ed in the •:- •- ss i f, nr;:^ nt of tht' atook, 

- s - 

"For Value Hacn.ivcci , h erii»by oeil, ft;i«i^m and tr.'i'Kfyr 

unto . 

?'»Mr«ss of ♦".ii^ C-^!-itrvl Brook Tti'7r*?3P.r.t,ed *>y Xiin within 
Gertifioftte, «nu dc hereby irrevooibiy oon«litut« and nj point 

to tr:»r.rtf«:r t:i<? inlid Stcjok en iho hcoka of* the 'wilrsin ;v:..n,«d 
Corporution »(ltn fu.H ro-cr of pyub'^t ifution in the rrw«.i««»« 

In rreruinort o*' 

/Ifter this c*»rt if isiitc 'v^s delivered to Bryan ami 
ocrL«tiiii.e rrlcr to th« ao:v».>«no»Kent of thl» ault he /llled 
out thi« blank sc that, it r»»i<J a» f«ll-w«is 

■For V''-i}u« reoftivod, I hereby nell, Rft«ign ,i«nd transfer 
unto ?nrUY A. TYNG — P^QQ — - 

Slinr^B cf the Cfir;tiv«l ?tc>ok reires»ent«d by the within 
Oiirtif ioitte, ana do n-.Teby irrevoo.ibiy cfinvititutc ani .»rr<>iR'S 

to transfer tiif; g^jJJ 3tocK on tne bocka of tli^ v^ithin nauod 
Corjonttion sith full rc'wor of «ubf,titution in *h« jrt'^Bxioea. 
Drited Ncvep-bsr inth ISll 
In f rj?f5ence of 
H;jn» Von R^in^sbcrg ^, C. f?ry«n 

"S^lXlisa C. 8rv;vn.« 

He then .leli7«r©a It to aij«.U.«;c, Tyng. 'Utncut 
Gtaer er,;ir>r»euient aj i"<5^^e<5» "^yj^g* "'"^ ';'>ilbert Soxon, the 
attorney in fact rn-it'-ad in th^; Js'.jove ftn.-3cr«eiient, r:r«':3P!ntecl 
the aertlfiCsite tc tiife yori oi-rition to tie cre^jldent ;ind 
seoretwry, orfftred to j-.urreirdnr the 3y.»e j^tj-.I rtaked tiiv'.t tlie be trjiHf^f erred on the bookw of th?'! corr or-'ition to 

' appe'. 'sefl, T;-;ii» f«;:-.iK?Rt belt?./.;:. ;Ferus?5ed af iveiiiee fi'led in the 
Sup^'jTlor Court hi« ;• *■* t H 1 .on fcr = -^irit of j*.&n:faiSiU«? to com,-Bl 

' sppeii..f4ta to Kaka fcuoii tr.;:nr.fHy Ir acocrdanoe 'ith tite ;*.ns!iga- 
fl^nt or. the ^:'p.?5k cf tno o^rtif loi.-te, ana afits uj the ^.ub- 
ffltanoe of th«^ faa'a -'.bcve r^-cltert, 

A -lismirrer tc thla re^ition b^lr^g ov*-,mi5ed, ;.frel- 
l.-^rita fiiad t;»eir Hejs"f.r.'iitft -i.nn^r'.rA to thf? :i.'^<fi.e. 

The anp"«cra of *jiC oorporatioB -kn>;i ita fTf^-iiat^nt 

|. aal »eoretgiry urft, in .^ubst.n-^G©, thft' «»jk8. By tji©«« i*^^:*?}!"!? 
arreili*nt« adn-it M^r ^nmianas of ths^ ;T.took, ■.i>>»5y krc«laUf,<3 

I of the ar-5fil;:np!it:nt, -;vc.r thit if ssuch nfiaigneient n;s« btisn iiade 

thit it ia oolorabl* onJy, i» aithcut cKn^l ieratlon anc5 
l?i»fte» no title; d«ny thut Jfoxon tfmcl«red thP otirt Jf icuti* 
of stock to %iiG ccrforatlcn or requestea thf^ i,?aUi»noe of a new 
certlfiofcte in lieu U t-.tcof to ■riirelle6, <:ver thm ftxi^itcr.Go 
cf the by-lawa above referred to rr .ulring th«r ftn»icr«o««cnt of 

♦ he oertifiottte to thif ««cretnry of the coriorution, vin-l deny 
thiit rtny «uoh endor««Pient wrs f^vcr B.ade« It 1'? furthftr 
ifi«r<>in ?iverrft<l thit Bryan obtriln«d the Bh::r«« of ^^ook 
rerre»©nted by thin o<»rtiric?<tft by f&Jne una -fraudulent nie- 
r«»rre«entation*i and thut the anKfi w^s i'Rued without consider- 
ation, .=.Tv1 thfi cftrtlfloatft r'-"*"*^^- ^'^ title to Rryan, 

To thewe *inrt«or« p.eni»rMl rsiHoKtionn ^;r,Tt fiied, 
A heciflng be ort the court re etui tea Jr. i. finding 
for the f p.titioncr and s^n oraor for .^ r«*^r«Kptory rrit oiT 
B:ancJ.a«iii« directing the trf*r\nift(T en the books of t-he cor- 
poration cf the j^harea of ^tock tc r>rr'^13i®^» ^^^-^ ^^*® i Asuance 

♦ o hlR. of cftrtif io:it«s tberfifor, "^hin apf«al foilo-^ecl. 

R«forc y r^rejBptory nrit of cnr prop«*rly 
ir5S\;e, thff fntitif-nsr itu-it ahc* n clR&r rirht to have that 
done shioh tufj s:rit<l8. 

Before the tr:.nefer of caj it!il '■••-toGk in a ocTforv^tion 
iftiil be c citi? e : .1 e<i by uetn.isaiUtt ev;ry reaflor^^'bl® reiUir«K«int 
cf thft by-la^s f;;U?it be ^Lc^fn to- hcve oefiii ccj^.[lifcu v.\ta. 
?hirU )y r.:;rn.cr3 Gr^in ^ Co<a Oo, v« T>cA>|ria3a , 13C Hi. ^ii;. , 


One of thp- i^^-n-RB y-";^.irt by ths rlf^fUnfn in thifl cnae 
7</jf» whether the c^rt! -f icate in '.s'.^fti^tion h^d brrrm ft-?i^ign«vi. 
to tho Boor^tury of th« Corf orntion, asa r^oxiireci by the by- 
laws of thfl ccrr criiticn Jibcvc rf5"^ni-rR'i +.0. It d05?f» not 
seer to hrV^ bfen titsfistlonfcd in tn<3 cjoiirt below .'snd it cor- 
tt^inly i« not qi(<e'?tionod h#r« th-t the by-hits requiring nuch 
. ?ai|»nn.ent to be to th;; ^coretHry cf tho corccr?.tion If ?. 
reuoonabl® one, ani one nece-^-'tssry to be coej lied -^ith. The 

V r a ': 

- 4 - 
proof j»ettl«8 bwyond controversy tiaxt It *.v.3 not eo r^.w«i»;ne<i, 
?^ll« »»« aro not umixe of f-.ny deoided case -vhcrti the r&^nor^^ 
abl©ne8« of tiie iti«ntioal by-Jaw unvl-sr ooTmlderaticn ti i» l"»^<sn 
p«(8#ed upon, alsullar by-law* h«ve b«6n held to bfl re»a!«on*ible 
and a ooicfilaRC* thwrewith n«cesnary In the trur.afcr cf 
RtoeK« of corporationa. In Ia n* y , Y'vun^, 01 Ve., 16C, a 
by-lriw le-iuliingi the tramsfer to be «rsa4e by lm?or9«»«rit in 

r I line in the ffo^enoe of the OJi^taier or two oth^r *;itnK«3C9 
»i;i« rjftid to bi" VMlid tnd th<^t » comrli^noe txi^rowith waa 
n«o«/^<jftry ♦ Tn " l-uitp.rg T nn. Co, V t rff ltsa S>ivilngi> Rank. 
63 Ala,, 5fir>, by-law requiring the r«tfl«try to b« Biadc in 
the pr****"?!* oi^ '^^««^ rrealifint end ?»«cr«ftary of tUft corrcra- 
tion w;i'5! ufhelcl. See :tl»c Cook on Corrora^^^ion*?, Qth E'd., 
aeo» 3;*^;;, 

Apr«ll«o hrivin?: fftl3«d to show k costrlianc^i with 
the reanonable re^^uir^B^ent cf th« by-la^a of thC' corporation 
a« to the Bi^nner in s-hich tranflfwrfl of j^tocK iru^t b© i!;8d«, 
he failed to R«tabli<»h ♦* clear ri^ht to th« r«tKedy »c>i~ht, 
Th« awfircilng ot' the »'rit unier thoan <5 ircurftt;inoe» ^si error. 

TJi<i? order of tho Btij-.rx'ior Cc*:rt, in, tri^rsfore, 
rev0r««<1 ;*aiA the oause in r«icana«d; to th»-t court *itii 
dtrectiona to deny Xha riri^yer of ths >ctiticn of r»r-pelif-f!. 


;.t fi 


■416. • 164 62, 


lppeH«e, )/ 



184I.A. 434 

rxLTVTKFr ?HF criNicu or T*^5i crtmr. 


Appellant bftg^aii a suit in rftjlevln in the wir'.;v,it 
Court .v^ The rrorurty jfn r.ucwtlon ?^a« auly taken unaer t,|.e 
writ and'^tlellvereU Xp «pf,«lliitnt , -A^r«ll«» arrfts>r«ii in 
f>«r«on tmc blr-ftHMJ^ael ?in'i filed her jrltsao, T^e coraon 
\ la* record fUed in this court iUiO^s tnt^t th« couoe w^tiS 

^reached for tri'"^l; tht*t the ph'intlff f:<ilin«; to iroesecuttB 
his Ruit th« aaae w.-iia on Eictlon of th« iiftfendant dlfmi^Becl 
Jit thp coJfta of thp pliiintiff, rind that e ^-rlt of r^tprno 
habenao wasj ordered. There l^ h1«o 3Cr<.f. thing that in iHbfilleci 
a "Rill of «xcci' tlone", ir)Oli>ie<J in tiiis r<*oord. Tt recites 
tii.vt *trif! abovo «Tillt.Jeci car^afi \%y.<^ reach^jd for tj-ial on the 
short 0isu3»» ciiendar, th« aacft having "00?^; plii««d en «>aid 
cvilend^r ;:»t the l-^mtance c^ the d^f f^niiant Mncl tiifj c«>i9e 
hiiVinp het?n rflacnej '^or +ri ^1 and tL« plaintiff failing to 
proa«cut« hia -jult, <?tc,, ns n.otion of the ti^sfenaont the ^.uit 
wctij aisjidaflied,* 

No exc«;.tlon to th? nc^lcn of t.hft oour* in 'iia- 
Bii^'-^in^ tj.f; 3uit i:% fr^aervfid in, or u;otion *.-.; .-'ot tL.^t 
order aaid© irj aho?n by thi'» JJO-Ciillect bill of e;';c«: tiori;?. 

TuK only rf^jjon xir£;ea by njr-Hant fcr ths rKVv;rai»l 
of thli? jiAdgrttnt is "tri^at thw C:lrcuit Court dies '.ot obt .in 
jurisfliction cv<^r thn «tib^eot R.atter -\nX the .•< 'fe Jir;nt for 
th« T.'.nt of B nc tloe feeing served upon ay pf*]". 'I'tvft 
notice ffff«rrfjjJ to ■fllni' a notion of \\.% filing of i>n affis^a'srlt 

- a - 

under S*!C5tlon 27 of the ^tfioticr, Aot for fh** j Iftolng of the 
(i:ifitt en the nhrrt oatn^a O'jl'fr.ilor, 

The jurisdiction r.f tji«5 Ctroutt r;oi:rt i^ gem^riil and 
unli»ited, When a Cironlt Corrt i^ rthcffn to hnve juri«;iiotlon 
of thP «ubjc;ct In, .ini of '■■he r nrM-ait to, n ^ult, nil 
preauttfttonB rirw ln;5ulg©a in, \n f..vor of th^? roguliirity of 
all Bubp»'4«en* proo«8«dingfl ur to ini Inclwding ltf» finul judg- 
a«nt, j>n4 ^ill rr^vsil ^ thr irra<(^ularlty of tu* HiAtu« in 
:iffiri»ativ'^ly fjhown, Chri'^^tle v, '^il^ftr . l'".B 113, Ajr ,, 
4^4, and c^aes thftr© cifed, T'hwt f.h« Circuit Court hi*a 
juriaJilctlon of the |;artie« tc, uwi the »»uh;5eot if.;H»ter in 
lltifjation in t,hi<» ca??o, i'' not questioriftci. 

For the pvirj. oses of this oiine it n..'iy be conc«u6a 
ti^i-jt the j,rn:ving of & copy of tii«i .'notice vvith Dorothy Hiibineau 
TiMi not such notice or i* cont*)Rploted by thf: statute, uiul 
fvirth^r th.'it tt,\a caua« ^^iR JiRficssed on thf) short cyuf»« 
cnlan-Jar, ntill in the nbfionce of -in Hffiriratlv© ai.owing tru'.t notlco w;;« ;:31 thfi norioft fiven aj-r,f?ll(nt, of the 
fiiinp of thfi -if f i.'U'iVi t undpr tqection ^f oi* th« Prj-^otios Act, 
it Ai21 be f r^«nn:.eJl ♦■h;.t othfr jrcof cf « rror-er '''(--rvJce of 
ovioh notice wa-i rresented. tc ♦ho coi;rt, 

Agjin, thti co&Bon l;** rrcord .icea not .f f i n n/f ivfsly 
show thiit tln» o-;Pe e,';!3 ;■; IfsvoHfld of on ♦ho f?hc:rt c-iuse Ci.I<->y>d'ir, 
f-.r;d the rfccit&la itj tn*-^ so-oa,Ueci bi.13 of exo^; tions c.;U) ttct 
be cor,<»id^'r«*d by tni« court, b»;cnu!^fs the ^aae 1^' .-'.irned by 
a ju^ige "who ^tid nc;t try t]lf^ oawe, i-nc; fli'-srs is nothlni^ in the 
rec ftrd to «ho^ t/.e ju-^Fe t^ho tried th-3 case ^-.r.g "by 
re:u«OTJ of dwath, aicVneas or other ^U'»J<billty*, virwAblfi to 
ctllow find slfn tnf; f*.?jn;e, ^nri tho-^e ar? tho on]Iy oo'dlt ion» 
unrier ««hich ;« bllJ of «;:?CHf-tion« ai^y be- ■^.i'trievt by uny on« , 
Gth*rr thz^n the judge whc tried tiiit c^-ae. 3e§ B<»olion BI, 
C;h.jpter ilO, R. n. ^T(.t f ^^'^ 

« 3 - 

Thf^ facjt th-'.t tho trira jUvJg* wafl "not emitting 
*lt«ln the juriwdin t.ion" iU tii*? tlii.« the ^io-o^ll«a biU of 
erce't.iona v»;3ft, 1« no ctlntbllity riiniurifig hitt; un.ihle 
"to rXlow md «ls:n ^j 1?1 ,11 of cxcertlona", Rosanboa. v. P wnk, 
l?l lU. Arr., ?;??Cj Su? . Ct, of roz*».»tev?^ v. Kno v ^leg. 
li;5 in. API., f*^4l; Chicit.-c y. Bo. PV . Comrw .. If^C 113., 

Tuf record r r-^-norstad iioft« not <i4<5olo«!e tii« error 
coBirl^iineti of und th« j\i;it-t(,Knt In, t.neroforw, «fflrft.ed. 


^i*. ; 

lie - 17642. 


Pefend&nt in Frror, 




T«^.KOR T 

K. B. LOUIS *nd T. r. BRnpRy, ) / 

CefendwtB. >■ /^ Oy CFICAOO* 

TRimAU V. 1»pnpKY, ) / 

Plaintiff in rrror, ) / 

In A 0U it in the ^funioip&l Court Tby duf «nd&nt in 
•rror, H*rry A, ?io««at, agaijnist ¥, B, Louia a.rid T, V, Bro^jhy, 
therein efrrioa of process t*a« had on Brophy «a.on*, * trial 
by th« oox^% without a Ju/y r«flult«d in « finding and Judgmont 
agA-in«t Br^phy for $500/ to ravsree which judgment ha i;roge- 
^ cut«a tble '*rit of mrrj6r, 

^ On May 19, 1910, pledLntlff Idii errcr endorsed « ni.4e 

^ far $600, p&y^1>le., is t«tn dftyg^ for ib* accommodation of 
/ ¥ , "S , Louia, the sjakar, to ■4'; osa the not« was auide p«»yci.T5l«, 
S, Thla nota was taken up at 'n&turity, >'h%n & aecond eisiil-rvr note 
^ waa axeeuted, and thtrreaftar ui>ori the maturity of said aecond 
* nota a third not.«» for t'nfa aar.* fesaount, r^feturing Juna Jc2, IvlO, 


lA WfeB executad t»nd anderaad in Ilka mt.nM«r, «nd d la counted at 


s^ tha J?Ciwth -'>ida Favinca Bunk, U|/On th« mats-rity of Vn^- whird 


C nota. Louis aourht to tak© it up "by dlcoovjsnting o. ll^e nct« 

^ d&tad ,Tun« »£, 1910, ps.yi;.hle ninety days a.fter dAta, ?.'hich, 


d^) after ita axecation and o«dyrsa?n«nt "by hin, ii« s-'?nt to d-sfan- 

dant in tirror with tli(3 reoxssst tr^^^t lie t*!.ice li'.s natter up with 
i pltaintiff in itrr'sr «\nd iirocura his sndyrawsent . 
s^ y Plaintiff in 5rror r^fuaad to andarae the notss, itn- 

leas ha wae prurldad ?^ith fu.nda sfith which to t&k« up t'-^ over 
[ dua nota at the; "h&nk, and ^hfersui^ifn dsfendunt in error, upon 

hie own r«si>onslt>ility, x-rocured a. lC'«n of |500 frosi one ef 

« 2 - 
his clientAi which h« turnad ov&r %o |>l£i.intiff in «;rror, who 
aoo«i>t<Hi th6 s^ua« and wnctorsed th« note of Jun« ic2, X^IO, 
which was tri«r«afti«r :'!*11 "by rtaf«Ti*tent in error. Plaintiff 
in &rror then oIbq applied the money r^oeirttd l»y hl« from 
d6fand«ijnt in error to Ui« i^^tyment df th9 overdue note &t the 
banJ^, T>]i» clkilm in thle suit is upon tha note of Ji^ne 22, I'^rlCI 
which plaintiff in ^rr^r t-.ere&fter refused to jxiy. 

Plaintiff in error now eaye that the pn^T sued upon 
ia not a promissory note; that according to ths t antimony of 
defendant in «rrcr he '*&« siriply i^roeuring th« endsres^nent of 
plaintiff in arror fcr the ttceorOTodint ion of Loula, and tb&t 
when Bwch «ndor««m«nt w«i8 «o procured the note wa« to he 
retiimed to Lc^^lei that Iftferdant in error w&b an attorney 
and wae so acting for Louie, ^nd that tn* |500 p«.id "by defen- 
dant in error wae ptiid for Lo^jIb; that thsi endore«rneint of 
plaintiff in error was ¥?it,tiout forC4 and eff&ot, bftcause the 
note wii,e wndoreed for »n attorney or «.n agent for » principal 
ani wjwB h-ald to m&turity und eued upon hy sneh attorney or 
agent} th&t the *ndore«5rnent "by plaintiff in srror ^i^s »n 
accommodation andoreeTnisnt, &aid &e gwch c&n not be «nfcro8d t^y 
ftn ine8edi&t« party t.Q the not«i tliat i^r^fiisrit&tion -of uh<i note 
to Louis, notice of protoftt *^ notice to pi .intiff in 'SrrC'r 
are void, h^cat^ae dsfsndfent in .ifrrGr hAi. no «.uth»rlty to cli.i!» 
ths note hB his o^sm, 

F.feoh o^ the several propositicns of l&vf ftubjnitted 
■fcy plaintiff in fsrrc-r vt^ir^ held by tli!« court 4aB i^-sj let* of the 
c&sft, atjd plaintiff in Errs^r tried the e«*s*i in the co^.^rt hsilow 
upon thf. tbecry th^t if tnt> fb.c»s. inTvivvid Id ^a-Ad prOiiOsltione 
of li>w gubmittad hy htia 'ft^itf?. found itg&lnst hifs cgntsntion, 
dQf«nd&nt in arr.r w&g -fmtitied t-a & rec^vtry «pon tha claim 
as madft. It ie ?.ic-nif --st, therefar©, t'7*'.t th« f*ct» invclved 
in SrAid propcaitione were found <vv;.^iriat i.h'a font fi^nt ion of 
plaintiff in arror ^ 


- 3 • 
Th« stibstanot of suld propositions so eu'bm.litQd l>y 
plaintiff in error and li^ld by th<* court i« i^e follow* » 

1, Th«.t if defendant in error r«i»pr«8*nt«d tc plaintiff 
in error that h« cams to vl^in'J'i^f i« «rror as th« repreBisn- 
tat ire of IduiB a.n<i defendant in error di«olQa«)<i th« fact to 
plaintiff in trrar that h« was «n attom«y, t)i«n all tliing« 
s&id *jn4 d«nd "by dsf «6n<i4int in error relatlTs to th« adji;8tjnent 
of ths p«^;yiRent of (.h« nct« in <;u««ti9n w»ij!} done by him &a the 
attorney for Louia r9gardle«a of smy andsrattrnding tlmt Might 
hfcT« l)««a entered into b6t«*en dsf«5nds».iit in trr^jr and Lcuio, 
wid whicb unrtenst ending ra^^fcined unfiisclo«ed to plaintiff In 
arryr, unle«s the oYidanee shv»W8 a. a«p«-xrat« e^nd distinct cuntrad 
betwsan defendant in error and j>laiintiff in ^trrnr index>»ndent 

of Bh.i& Louis « 

2, That If defendant in ©rror und«rtcoK uO n«^oti&ts 
for a eattlsnent or a.n esstsnflion af Mmt^ of th«s not© in qv<ea* 
tion for wn'i in "behalf of T/juis felon« asa In no Ovher cap&city 
and hft vft« At the time an actual ^jr&ct icing &tt^rn«y and 
diaolosed that fact to i>lt.intiff in error and 8 aid in effect 
th»t he represented Levis j then in legal 'if feet hs «u8 th® 
attorney for Louie in a&id t rcoisuet i on and can not be considered 
an independent ii«s.rty acting diruclly on >>i«t cwn bsh^^if -^-itJt 
plaintiff in •&iTor, 

3, th&t in «fc r%si.vier of poat-roverisy b'^t'^««n t^'o i/?>.i'tifie, 
if 4fc Ihlrd p6rty ienovm to ba an attorney ^^ resents hi^nste'^lf ixs 
the attorney of une of ins p<irties to aaid oontroversy, tht^n 
s&id atwornvsy ia aatopped from denying th^ r'55iJA&ion of attorn«y 
and client "'^«tw«en hirait^ilf &ud th?; peirfcy th^^t he holds to 
rfepreaant if h« h-^js led th« o?.i?4>r p^a'ty fco the corstrovf-rsy 

to do any aiot or thing by rs^s^son of add rti>r«>« ftntiit ion «iind 
that fclond, fl 

4, Tl;&t in SB^ note s'aed upon pliUntlff in error is i^n 



- 4 - 
aeeonnodfttlon lndora«r| ajnd defendant In err<5r Ic un aecomme- 
dfttion holdtr with notio« *ind without valu«, unless a-t the 
tiw*! of the p&yiacnt of fire hundred dollfirs ov*sr to ply.inwlff 
In error «aiid dwifend&nt in error '11ecl»«ed to plaint i^f in 
•rror I int be w»» not i>»ylne: g'iid fly« hundred dcili^ro 3Y«r 
for thf benefit of J-ouis, Tsnt that it w&« an indoi'tsndont loan 
made by dsfendtnt in srror, cr for s^Bse pfarty far "s-hcm d-^fffln* 
dant in orror w&c noting oth^r than Louis, 

5, That if defendant in ^rror gave t* plaintiff in tA-mr 
fire hundred doil«.r«, i^nd it w^a ]cno'<vn to plaintiff in error 

dr to the attorney of plixinliff in «rrjr that t!ie five hundred 
dollars CAjne from a fxurxd and waa '^wned «»nd l0i»ned by gam® ather 
party tifan defendimt in erryr or towie, nevjrtlielese d^jfendant 
In errwr would be an ♦kCcorRtncdat ion holder '«lth nctioe oind with- 
out eoneid«ration ©.a ty i>iai.--tiliff in errcr unl<iS8 defendant 
in error Aiscloised the fact tc plaintiff in arror th^t the money 
wae not obtained far &ri<l in tehalf of Louis, but was oV.tained 
independently fro« defendant in m-rjr or kow*! peri-on reprrs^intGd 
by him, 

6, IhijX i£ dsf«ndfo'it In fi.rr:jr wa«, as * rM&ttfer uf f^tct, 
the Httomey -^-jr IouJb in t^-is triune act ion, and paid t;.;^, f.We 
hundred dollar« cv?:r 'co yl-antlff In error hz the attorsfiey of 
Louis, to 'lisG':^-xT^,<s t^ nots u^jon vJ'Ich pl^iintiff in srrwr *f&« 
B$c«»rAt.y for Lo^.ie, th*^n tliia note sti.»d upon is & no%Vi in t^'S 
hands of dsf'^ndant in error s^ithO'Jt oon3id';;r*&i'w>n. 

The *vld«noe bearing upon ts>: /5'*v^;rai /.-■■isssticns cf 
fact involved Xa r-,0 clc'&«ly «;onflioting i^-rvt t'l^ finding of 
the triiid c»surt in thiti Owse nuat b»i .held tv ^a canrl--ijiv», 

cijm© of ^he grtunde novi' urg^jd by i-lain\-iff in srror 
tare vholly ut v.tri&nce -.vii.h vbe ^Qnitlon aaaJiraed by him in th.& 
trlfrl court, '-(s cf»nnot be iJiirnitUed t.u shift hia posit Ic^n in 
& court of f'>vi0'w. 

7i i 

- e - 

Th«r« i» no error in th-s record feff meting tn« sj^grits 
of th« ©ontror«ray und the Jud^msnt ije &fflr'nsd. 


A; , el i ae, 


JAVrS inJLLrKBACH et al., on 
Appeal of 




184I.A. 437 


'The Chicago Real Eetaie Board, a <.'.i|. viation, 
.0^.5 filed Ite bill of interpleader in the Circuit Court 
igainet Jaaee Uullenbaob and Louisa 8. French, praying that 
aald defendante be required to interplead and eettle and 
adjuet their respective clai&e and denanda to the sum of 
ll»300, held by coaplainant, and said defendante having 
filed their several anawera aettlng forth their reepeotlve 
claiae and de»and8, the cause was heard by the ohancellor 
who entered a decree requiring the complainant to pay said 
aftount, leee coeta of court, to the clerk, and directing 
the olerk to pay the ease to the defendant, Louiea 8, French. 
'''hie appeal froa aaid decree is pronecuted bv the defendant, 
Jamee Xullenbaoh, 

The uncontr over ted facte are substantially as 
follows: On and prior to October, 1909, appellee, who 
was the owner of certain preiaieee deecribed ae the north 
half of lot 155 and south half of lot 155, also the north 
half of lot 156 and the south half of lot 156 in Division 3 
of South Shore Subdivieion of the north fractional half of 
Seotlon 30, township 38 north, range 15 east of the 3rd 
principal meridian, Ccok County, Illinois, enlisted the 
eervlcee of h««r hueband, Garrison F. French, and his father, 
8. A, French, in an effort to effeot a sale of the e&Ae. 
With the cor.eent of appellee rn of John A. Carroll A 


■ Brothtr, vnxcn iirin «a« a aecbtr oi me ^nicago Real KttMtc 
I Board, was aaployad to Hal *.be preifilaes for salt at public 
'on through the agency ' 'J real eatata board. To 

I IB end, appellae, on Oc* .j^ , ^•^~^. txeoutad r "''' ":^ 
Rtraot*, vbaraby she agreed tc coi. rekiaaa ax. a-.u.iun' 
I to convey to the auocepeful bliJt :>d and nerchantable 
^« tharato. The contract contalr — '-*lon of the 
v.^aiaea, aa heretofore -*'--!, and ino h^u.w -crc further 
^reln dtaorlbvd xinder n-.r- .aeignation "laprOTeaienta", aa 
ritrett and nuaber 7439-41-43-45 Bend av«. and 7438-40-43-44 
' kt avt., vaet front on Bond ava. and Mat front on Lake ava, 
»• of each lot 50 x 311*. '^ " contract further providee 
at the deaoriptlon la " * ownera beat knowledge 
-ad belief and only for . - ^..^^^^^ of identifying the pro- 
perty and the aucceeeful bidder ehall b« deenad to have aatla- 
^ied hlaaelf aa to the corrAntmas of the deacriptloa before 

-^king hie bid at the aale, IC per oent of the «ucoeea- 

ful bid ehall be dapoaited with the real aetata beard in eeorov 
on the joint order of tha owner and bidder, to-be held aa 
earneat i.oneyj that a Torrena certificate of title, or coa^ 
plete aerchantable atatract of title brought down to date of 
auction, or Berchantab> ^ranty policy shall be furn- 
iehed by the owner to the succeeeful bidder; that if abstraot 
ia furnished the eucceaaful bidder ehall deliver to the vendor 
an opinion of title within IC days thereafter, specifying ob- 
jections to title, if any; that the vendor shrill have 60 days 
thereafter to cure iraterial defecte in caae any auoh are found 
and in caae euch defecte are not then cured the bidder aay 
declare the aale null and void; that tiae ahall be of the 
eegence of the cor.trac* . ' ,: auant to this contract the 
real estate boai. mus ceana, advertieed the prfmises 
for sale at public auction at the board rooae on Ncveicber 11, 


- 3 - 
19C9. One of the aeane aiort«d for advertitlns th« talt wae 
a printed circular containing ieaoriptlr* witter, together 
with a plat of the block bounded on the north by 74th atreet, 
on the eaat by Lake Michigan and Lake ave., on the aouth by 

)75th street, and on the west by Bond avenue, being the block 
in which the lote in question are aituate. Upon this plat 
lots 155 and 156, which appear back to back across the full 
lldth of ths block, are ehadsd within the designated lot 
linss by llnee drawn tranevercely fro» northweet to eoutb- 
eaat, and thn land lying eat*^ ' \'^ eaet line of lot 156 to 
the lake, Including the portion o^ Lake .avenue, between eaid 
eaet line of let 116 and the lake, ie shaded by lines drawn 
tranevereely from northstat to southweet* The circular wae 
entitled *Lake Shore ar.i Boulevard Frontage*, and o«atalB«d, 
JBong other atateaents, *'^- *-'i -_*_-. 

•This property consists of a frontage of 100 feet on 
Pond ave. Boulevard, running through to Lake Michigan 433 
feet fronting one hundred feet on the propoeed Lake ave. 

'It is adairably adapted for a gentleaan'e home with 
large grounda on the Lake Shore.* 

"There ie only a em&Il aaiount of Lake fror.tage on the 
aouth eide accessible, ana this is the only sntlre prcterty 
running through froK the boulevard to lake," 

Mr. Rayaond Robbins, who had viewed the preaiees 
several yeare previously, being advieed by an inapeotion of 
a eign board, and of the circular referred to, that the pr«* 
mieea were to be eold at auction, contenplsted purchasing the 
same for the purpose of eatablishing a bathing beach, and to 
thie end requested appellant, i/ullenbaoh, to attend the eale 
and take title to the preirieee in his naAS, Printed pan- 
phlete, prepared by the real estate board, containing rulee 
governing the auction sale, instruct lens to bidders und des- 
criptions of ♦^» r 7./^. »T-t ^ •■ * r. >sa nfr^ymrt f qj. SalS, WSTe 

- 4 ► 

aco««tltI« to and oirculattd aaong prospactlT* blddtrs and 
raraona praaant at tha auction roosa, including appallant 
and Mr. Robbina. Hotioa »aa tbaraby firan that tha daa- 

riptlcns t.ierein oontdinad had baen ooayiltd only froai tha 
Hating coniriicta sign'' arioua aallara; ouch 

daacriptiona vara baliavea to te oorract, but the bo^ra aa-> 
auaad no raaponaibllity tharafor; that two oopiaa of aaoh liat 
Ing contract wert thara on flla; and biddara vara tharaby 
raqueatad to varify for theosalvaa all atatamanta and to faai- 
liariaa thaftsalraa baforthand with th« Hating contraota of 
propartiaa on «hich thay azpactad to bid* Tha daacripticm 
of tha praaiaaa in quaetion, ao fax aa hara InTolvad, vaa 
•tatad in said paaphlai ma followa; *7439»45 Bond avanua. 
7438-44 Laka aranua. This proparty conalata of tha plot 
of ground 100 x 432, having a frontaga of 100 faat on Bond 
aranuo and 100 faat on Laka avanua and running froa ona atraat 
*:r> *^.9 othar a dapth of 422 feat*. 

At tha time and plaea namad in tha notioaa of aala 
tL9 preaiaaa, aa daacribad in the Hating contract, vara 
atruok off and aold at public auction to appal lant, and 
shortly tharaaftar upon the aaaie day appallant aignad a ■•»- 
orandua andoraed upon th« back of aaid liating contract, aa 

"Tha aboTa daacrlbad proparty, having been offarad at 
Public Auction at tha rooaia of Tha Chicago Raal latata Board 
on tha 11th day of HoveBber, 1909, and having bean atruok off 
to Jaaaa Vullanbach the beat biddar at aaid aala, at tha prioa 
of $13,000 upon tha teraia in the liating contract abova aat 
forth, aaid Jaaea Muilanbaoh, the underaignad in coneldaration 
thereof haa aepoeitad the aua of tl,200 with The Chicago 
Real Eatate P.ourd to be held by then in aacroa aa providad 
in the liating contract above eet forth aa earnaat aoney on 
aaid bid, ana agreea to carry out all tha provlaiona to ba 
carried out by tha succeaeful biddar in the foregoing liating 
agreement eii^ned by Loulaa S. French on the 22nd day of 
October, 1909," 

Shortly after the aala ■< appellee aubnittad to ap- 

p«ll&nt*a attorney, Mr. V<»eartne7, abttractt of till* to th« 
aorth and touth halT«« ] 55 and alao an oplaioa of tltla 
to lot 15S Isauad by iapartatnt of tha Obioago 

Tltlo A Truat Co* AocoKpanyiag aaid abatraota of tltla and 
■ado a part thartof was a copy of a rocordod docuaont aabody- 
ing tha raatoratlon of a plat of tha aubdlTlaion In which 
tha praaiaaa In quaation wara looatad. Thia plat baara dato 
Juno 2i, 1871 y and ahowa Lake av<^nuo of tho width of 150 feat 
to the aaat of lot 156, and alao abowa a narrow atrip Of ground 
lying betwaan tha aaat lino of Lake aTonua and tho watara of 
Lake Vlcbigan, daaignatad aa lot 180, Objeotlona wara aada 
by Mr. kaoartney to tha tltlo to both lota 155 and 156, but 
all auoh objaotlooa were reaoved, except auoh aa woro atatod, 
aa followa: 

"Thaaa praaiaaa were aold under a apeolal bullatin ro* 
ferrinc to the auction aale and containing a plat In which 
lot 156 ie colored and ahown to extend to the water of Lake 
Miohi|an, burdened only with a atreet eaaenent (Lake aTenuo)* 

■The plat of the Subdivieion, Wo. 77 of the abatraot, 
doea not abow auch ownerahip. but on the contrary ehowa a 
atatutory plat with the lot line ending with the weatarly 
Una of the atreet. 

■In addition to thia it ahowa that there waa lot 180 
platted beyond the ori.3inal llaite of the etreet, froa tha 
ownera of ahich it would be necaaiary to obtain quit olaia dooda, 
aa in any owent had the lot ripariin righta aa repreeentad 
by the plat the private claiae to lot IdO would be a aub> 
etantial oloud thereon.* 

In lieu of an abatraot of title appalloa then pro- 
cured a title guaranty policy on aaid lota 155 and 156, ax- 
oopt aa to *rlghta or olaiaa of partiaa in poaaaaaloa, not 
ahowB of record and queationa of aurvay*, and oortala other 
exooptione not here iOTolwed, which polloy, together with a 
auffloiaat warranty deed of tha praaieae, appellant rofuaod 
to aocopt» Notioe wae thereafter aerwed by appellee upon 
appellant doaanding a coaplianoa by the latter with the terao 
of eale, and upon hie refueal ao to do a eubeequent notioo waa 
aerTOd by appellee of her election to declare appellant la 

je: .. 'f. eXie« 

title mthln * - ^' - "*' -...-ing retvi--'^ «f 

On F?^ru?-" ■> ^ . "•'-'■' *l«» ma^u --. - -,^.. .. 

Pica; F^ ^.^ . 1 .. •• reepeotiTely th« am .* 

pcci*- '■^'llant in eacrow as earneat aone/* 

..^j.--. '1* MftfVfl A I »»«i' i lt»i rn of t.he contraot of aalt 
h« •avaral ;«ctiona t- 

•.. ie . iot 156, - , . - . *h« further 

^rounla, firat, tha* lay preoedlng the aale appelltt 

Terbally repreeentea ^ted to Mr, Roblna that the pro*- 
perty in quee^.ion ha:l rlrarii^ri righta; aecond, that the 
*itle guaranty coll _ appellee aae not in oo»- 

pliance ^i\\ ^ of the contract in that it waa 

■ade subject to quest. or.s of aurvey, and, third, that the 
proof.* \- the recor. . oea that 40 or 50 feet of the eaat- 
ciiy ^. '. lot !=;« waa formerly eubmcrged by the watera 
of Lake Vlchigan, «! -n eetabliahed a p^ermanent shore 
lic:e, which reafter extended to its preeent 

eaetern llKits by near.? of a pier conatructed in the bed of 
the lake at a point imsiediately north of and adjacent to the 
north line extended of lot 156, whereby the land so made be- 
oa&e and ia the property of the atate. 

U&queationabI .ppellant waa induced to enter 
into the contract of aa ueation by the aierepreaentatione 
cr falae repreaentationo of appellee or her agente relating 
to «ateri ',he ocntraot 

^r.d recover bacJc the earne * hereunder, 

criptive of the preaisee 
*' - ■• '..-:" .iletin advertiaing the aale 

are to be conatrued t;^.;ether, and when eo oonetrued It ie 


of the - 

ir.dio ttp I 
tanot west t 

^ppellu neitner ie .leve n^ 

"" extended to the eQi^e 
'3ftoauae eaid i " " ' 

a I. ere e^re ar.J. u^ao inaicix.»a t.p lana 

intervening ae :^ei..g laid out and ieeli;nated aa Lake aYenut* 

That appellant - - 
from the fact 
ed he expreeee 
the eaet line v^^ 
a etreet eaeement, 
jontroverted evide' 
eaeement or «t r^,- • 
dppellcinl aa . 
the contract c. ,_. 

* ^cloeee 

..a pel ^ * 

— " ■ - le aani'' -' 

. . . « ae ab ^ 
.iic iand lying be.«s-w 
'a edge »ae burdened wl*^ 
Furthermore, the un- 
' e exiatenot of a street 
w.ted «aa accepted by 
*o the coneuaaatlon of 
...erefcre, that appellant 

did not rely upon, and was i ct mleled by, the alleged aiia- 

repreeentation . 
the water* , •, 

rereblp of 9^: 
•aat by the water* ed-^. 

the public ea?»i»2:ent In ! 

p Id t ■■.,... . 

acrlptlTe language enployed in 

unmietakable rppreeentatlon ty 

land exieted between the ea.? 

-leeignated, and the * 

verbal 1' 

eged rrrresnntdt 

ine of lot 156 extended to 
ee hdl riparian righte, inci- 

Dunded on ' 

, jjt coneideratlon 
it appeare upon the 
to?ether wl*h the dee- 
, tee an 
nr-rellee that no privately owned 
156, ae there 
'•f: cn the dar preceding th*^ Bale 

:ence v» 
-epared to eay the findin;, ty 

' . evidence *lr. ; 
e by appellee. Is 

unwarrant' indlng Of the ohancallor, as stated in 

the decrea, le equivalent to a flndlnc that the evldenoe 
faile to eupport the oontentiOB of appellant upon that leeua. 

offered in evlder.c reatored record 
of a plat of the South Shore Subdiviaion fraotional 
oectlon, wherein the land inoluding the preaisee here in quea- 
tlon wae originally eurveyed and eubdivlded into blookt» Xote 
and etreete. In June, 1871. Thie plat faile to oonform to 
♦hf *.dtute in eeveral eBB<- articulare and operatod to 
coni*'. itute merely a coajnon law aedication of the etreeta there i; 
indicated, and not a atatutory dedication of euch etreeta, ao 
that the abutting ownere hau title to the ceuter of the etreet >, 
eubject to an eaeemei ♦ t^.ercin In favor of the public. That 
thie plat ooretituted merely a coauion lav dedication appears 
to have been conceded, cr at leaat not controverted, by oounee: 
for appellant at the hearing. The land embraced within the 
plat ie thereby ehown to be bounded on the north by 71et etroet, 
on the eaet by the vatera of Lake Michigan, on the acuth, ex- 
cept aa to a portion not here involved, by 75th etreet, and 
on the weet by Tatee avenue. Lake avenue ie thereby ehown 
to be 150 feet in width, and abutting the eaet line of iake 
avenue ite entire length, ae ehown by the plat, appeare a 
narrow atrip of land deaignated ae lot 180, the dimeneiona of 
which are oeiitted, extending froa 71et etreet on the north to 
75th etreet on the acut^ '" ^ bounded on the eaet by the water* 
of Lake Michigan. 

The main controveray in the caee, ae we view it, re- 
latee to the actual statue of lot 180 ""^ ^^ ♦he righta, if 
ery, of the former o"'-*"-" of aaid lot. 

It la un.'^ tad that for , of a* least 
30 yeare ti;e ■^^•'. .- deal 'p-te: . ^__. ^ lot 19C. 

b*>t#*«n '>4th w..-. 'rM«.tn^ „^, „. _, the greator p^,- 

li^i. ' - ^trir. r '"'•ted aB I.ake avenue, have 

" .^' rtn aco*pt»d or in.^rcv«a ai* 

(> ^ alto uncontrover^" ' 

' e portion u: saia lot jlo^ iiXJi. ^i.a ed at lying dltOCtljr «>»• l 

--*' lot 156 hat oontinutd to bt eetttttd for taxation, and that 

i .^-..ii^, ..-^ ^••'" •'^•nitd soae dlatanc* tatt by tht rtctso 

_._ . ... ie:)iinat4i 

us L&hr __ « «at e . u eubmergtd b\ 

cf Lake Ifxchlgan gradually and iaperceptibly, or sidienly 
dvulaion, it not iitoloted ty the evidtnot 1' . 

tuch aubBergenot was gradxial and iaperotptiblt, and it perna- 
ntnt, lh« title to thf* land to tubnerged btoaaa lott to the 
owner, bu* r genet wat tudden and ptroeptibla in 

Ita operatirn, the title tc/ the land so aubuergtd rtnaina in 
^■^.^ '■'' ■ e owner nay regain tht taxM either by natxiral 

or -.IJj, ."^ Chlc aRo t. Ward. 169 111., 392; 

Coaiaiseiopere of LI- 'ahrnty. 350 111,, 256. 

Aere made by appellant to pro- 
ot 180 lying eatt of tht pre- 
■itte in question ani negotiationt by appellant to that and 
»ert in progrett when *hit controverty arote, 

Tht termt o" the so-calltd litiing contract hawing 
betn fully coaplltd with by aipellee, tht it tntitltd to 
recower the earadtt money uepoeited by appellant in escrow, 
unlest appall . taid contract was entered 

into by hia upon tne alleged falst representations 

by arpellec, . . ^^ff - ; .-= of ©f ,^5^ 

vulaion, e • 

oib9Tz*<i ant haa 


/•ya<l a ' ei, 

eacrlbad ; ' ^ » 

irray unj. ix:'» Ho que^ 

. i ^es ia invai >. " 

ajpellee *o i.j". ^ Buide auoj ^^uaationa of i 

^■it wholly isoiaterlal, ' ion ur^ad by appellant 

^^upon t' .nd ia un5w.La;untial, 

at of tha 

■^ast per*. ..n of lol i ^ie ^^ni ^o^ ie^» ao mada by tha 

.mediately north of 
-Ci-aanly in direct Tarianoa 
^^ui^n tne c^aiciea ex.e.ence . '30 and la unsupported by 
^^Kay aubatantiva evidence in lue record. 

^^m Appellant alao contenda that a deposit on a bid at 

^^an auction aale Kuet in equity be conetruad as a penalty and 
not aa liquidated damagea; that a party aeeklng to inforce 
auch penalty auat aho« actual dana^aa; that on tha record in 
thia oaae no aaioage ia ahom, ana, therefore, appellee ia not 
er*. ti«i ♦ - '"cover the p.<r-«a* .xoney in queation. Thia 

• r.-*m- \ awe; filed by api^eliant, nor 

-,♦». . -, .w^ ' ?ellor ui.'On 
'.r.e nedrir. 

enforce a lenalt e«" 

n T«ndor» upon the default of the vendee, froa 
hae been paid ipplied 

le pvic«- ^t8 

tii^n ii. leerm ooairttot'- 

1 va te p 

cretioi .rair.g coste, 

- i arilruied. 



Superior court, 
/ cook county. 



■V.., 1912, Ho? 
214 - 18251. 

JOHN P. CASEY, as Administrator 
of the entate of FREPERICK F. 
RIECKHOFF, deceased, 






This ia a suit by John/1^. Casey, as adminiatrator 

of the Estate of Frederick F, R^eckhoff, deoeaaed, against 
the Chicago Railways Company and the City of Chicago, to 
recover damages for vrr'^ngttllly causing the death of plain- 
tiff 'a intestate. At the trial in the Superior Court rer- 
emptory instructions were given to the jury at the close 
of plaintiff's evidence, and upon the directed verdict finding 
defendants not guilty, judgment was entered against plaintiff 
in bar of his action and for costs. 

The evidence for the plaintiff tends to show the 
following state of facta: At the time of his death the 
deceased was a teacister in the employ of a -Yholesale liquor 
establishment, for which he delivered goods to retail custon.erai 
On and for possibly a n.onthrprior to June 29, 1909, the def- 
endant railway company, ^vith authority frcrn the defendant City 
of Chicago, was and had been engaged in xeccnstructing its 
street car tracks on v.-est T'.velfth street. During such period 
of reconstruction the old south or east bound track had been 
temporarily removed to the south side of the street ii^niediately 
adjoining the curb, vhere it '.vas placed upon the =?urface of 
the street, the rails and ties being entirely exposed, ~?ith- 
out any filling between the ties. At the time of the occur- 
rence in (iueetion the two new tracks in the center of the 

street had been fully completed and surfaced, but the railway 
company had not then uaed the new north or west bound track, 
and was using the temporary track for east bound cars and the 
new aouth or east bound track for west bound cars. On the 
afternoon of the day above stated, the deceased being accompan- 
ied by his son, aged 13 or 14 years, drove a team of horses 
hitched to a heavy wugon east on the gouth aide of the street 
between the temporary track and the new south track, and 
stopped in front of a saloon, located about the middle of the 
block, for the purpose of deliverir? a keg of liquor. The 
deceased alighted froa. th« v/agon, directed his son to hold the 
lines, and was carrying or rolling the keg across or over the 
temporary track, \^nen a pa-^sing west bound car "scratched" 
or "scraped" the whiffletree, and thereby caused the horses 
to become restive, - "kind of scared them"-. Upon noticing 
the actions of the team deceased directed his son to turn the 
horses around on the other or north side of the street. As 
the boy ^vas driving the team around, as directed, they took 
fright at a cloud of dust and seme pieces of paper blov/n by a 
gust of "^ind and started to run in a southwesterly direction 
toward the temporary track. The deceased then ran into the 
street, and grasped the lines near the horses bits, and thus 
sought to stop them. The horses crov^ded the deceased upon 
the temporary track, v/here he had about succeeded in stopping 
them, or had gotten them under control, vvhen his foot caught 
in the open sface between the ties ana was there held fast, 
so thv^^t he fell dorm. The horses becoriing frightened by the 
falling of the deceased again started to run, and the deceased 
having extricated himself held on to the lines, until he stuir.- 
bled against the ties and rails and again fell down anti was 
thereby compelled to release hie hold on the lines, Before 
the deceased could again arise the wagon ran over him causing 
the injuries v»iiich resulted in his death. 

3 leiT.^r 


':iiB3;f 9rif neewrt 

1x6 bd8se: 

i;^ qo^B v^ id'i 

..ii-} T doiriw eel-u/tni 

- 3 - 

In the several counts of the declaration plaintiff 
charged the railway company 'vith negligence in const rue ting 
and maintaining the temporary track with unfilled ties and 
openings between said ties; charged the City vdth negligence 
in maintaining the street in an unsafe condition and in 
permitting the railway company to construct and maintain 
said temporary track; charged both defendants with negligence 
in maintaining said temporary track and in maintaining the 
street in a dangerous and unsafe condition; charged the 
railway company with negligence in failing to remove the 
temporary track within a reasonable time after the completion 
of the work of track reoonatruction; cliarged the city with 
the like negligence; and charged both defendants with the 
like negligence. 

If any rule oi" law can be held to be settled in 
this state, it ie that, if there is any evidence in the 
record from which, standing alone, the jury could, without 
acting unreasonably in the eye of the law, find that all the 
material allegations of the declaration had been proven, 
then the case should be submitted to the jury; that in 
passing upon a motion for a peremptory instruction, it is 
not within the province of the trial court to weigh the 
evidence and the question of the preponderance of the evidence 
does not arise; that the question vhether the verdict is 
against the rcanifest '.veight of the evidence is one to be 
passed upon by the trial court upon motion for new trial, and, 
in the event that such motion is overruled and judgment 
entered, for the Appellate Court uion error a3f5igned. 
Libby. McNeill & Libby v. Cook. C23 111., 306. 

Where rearsonable mien acting within the limits pre- 
scribed by law might reach different conclusions, or different 
inferences could reasonably be drawn from the admitted or 


. 2.U bi. 


1 3 i.A :XJ .»( tl J. 

•Vil/ 11 

oH «Yd( 

_ 4 - 
established facts, the ouestions of negligence, contributory 
negligence and proximate cause are questions of fact for a 

The o.ere fact that the teDiforary track was construct- 
ed and laid in a manner usual throughout the city, does not 
absolve the defendant froni negligence, either in peruitting 
said track to be maintained in the street an unreasonable 
length of tin.e, oi in yeimitting said track to rcn.ain in 
the street and be used for the operation of cars after the 
new permanent tracks were coropidted and ready for use. 

The unfilled temporary track 'xa3 placed on the 
surface of the street at a point where persons delivering 
goods from wagons on the south side of the ntreet were neces- 
sarily required to walk upon and over said track and to use 
the portion of the street adjacent to said track as a drive-way 
and in the management and control of their horses. In order 
to charge a person writh the consequences of his negligent act, 
it is not necessary that he rriust have foreseen the precise 
form in which the injury occurred. If, -rAien the injury 
occiirs, it appears that it ''/as a natural and probable conse- 
quence of hia nep-ligence, it is sufficient to warrant a re- 
covery. Again, as to i roxinate cause, vvhile the negligent 
act or on.is9ion must be one of the es-^ential causes rroducing 
the injury, it need not be the sole cause nor the or 
nearest cause. If it cor curs Y:ith the other cause, ouch 
as an accident or the negligent act of a third person, v.hich 
in combination with it causes the injury, it is sufficient* 
Waschow V. Ke lly Coal Co .. 245 111., 516. 

The fact that the injury coir.plained of vrdB occasioned 
to the deceased •while he ;iras atterupting to coijtrol a fractious 
or frightened team of horses, which were properly on the 
street at a point adjacent to cr near the temporary track, 
and --vho, in so joing, was necessarily required to go upon 

r<or.tsisqo eAt tot b©; 



>o v^tf^fil Bdi rioxrfw nJt mi 


7XI9 X .V fforic - 

no 9oen aew .^nioi ob ci 

- 5 - 
said track, doea not dewiand a holding that, as a natter of 
law, the defendants cannot be held liable for an injury to 
the deceased occasioned by the unfilled ties of said track, 
upon the ground that such injury was not the natural and 
probable confaequence of the actr, of the defendants in ao 
constructing and inaintaining said track and in perriiitting 
the same to be so constructed and maintained. The question 
wae one of fact for the jury. 

Appelleea insist that the deceased was guilty of 
contributory negligence, as a matter of law, in directing 
his son, a lad of 14 years weighing 80 pounds, to drive 
a heavy team of horses around in the street. If like 
questions were to be determined by trial courts or courts of 
review, as questions of law, trial by jury would be practical- 
ly abolished and destroyed. '''hether or not the deceased was 
guilty of contributory negligence, in the respect Cientioned 
was undoubtedly a question of fact for the jury. 

For the error in giving the peremptory instructions 
the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, 


- e - 

to tBiiax « •« ,*6iil gnltlorf e bnsinsb ton tsot t^oBtt fctr^s 

""^ B9J:;t beXIilxtu art;}' \"f .^anoieBOOO b88B*o«b ail* 
■.ft ;*cn r?'— rtr.'M-r ^uU bnuois 9di ao i 

OB at "t Iro aaaejLrpavaoo sIcfBdOTq 

noi^iS6 . iSa^ot-'i^Raoo oe ©d o* •«. 

.yiut »il* io1 tot; "5 "^o sno 6^ 
<*,+ tax^rti aaaiXaq iA 
?|itfto*; lo T»-i ,' ,aoiia3il33a xio&u^titaoo 

evlti ot ,«i"ntroq 08 gaid-^ior: aiBej t-i to i)Bl fi «aoB aid 
a ,i . .tawate ddt ai i)iT:;>'oia aoatEOil to mea* "^vaan 

to atxuoo 10 atiucQ Istr:? Yd Jbanlatatab »«f o* •rev saol^aawjp 
~Xfio. 7^ Tcf i.i^t%i <irBX to anoXtaaup a£ ,walv . 

B&v " oa lo la/f: .ijayoitasb bna bailaiXv 

jjSiioitnaa toaqaaa oiit nx <sona3iXa»n yio^JJdli^noo to x^i^^m 
.Xiul axlt xol *oat to aoi >trfuobfiuj t 

Siioi^Oifiieni yxotqiasia] ad* jifliTla ni loiia 'idf xol 

..;3.:ii :J^.3■I ya;i ;q 'Sd.t Lnr. baeiaTsi ex &aBm-^but e ' 

[arch Term, 1912, Ed 7] 
328 - 18368, 

i;S4I.A. 441 


C. C. H?T3FS, ) fCr^K Cf"fTSTT. 

Ar jell ATiX, ) / 



\ / 

this la sn notion on the/bvisie inia^ltuted in the 


Suf^'tior Ooiart by arpellee a^uinat the r4| reliant, C, C. 
HPi^en, f*n4 ^e Fevieral ??tGel ?i^t»ire Corrpsny, *o recc>v«r 
^ jutusea for r*v2^3onnl injuries,/ The? suit ttss Jisisjiafseii aa 

K to the Fedorsl ^eftl Fixture jSo®f.atny una r.rooee:ied to ^ rii-^l 

by iury .-jg.^inat *h% a^peia.i^ftt, ^hich Sriisl rcsiulteci in u 

\ ,?■' 

varxUct arui juclf.iattnt Xg»34>j!»t rippellant for f^jSOO. 

J Tne t©o2iirstioii ccatainn three c mints ami un ad- 

JSt icnal count, I'ka fir?is o-rwrA, cjj'lttlrig the Qi\urg<iB of 

n*»j^llger.C(? by the 'l^fftnignt, Ferieral Otft^l Fixture Cor:r:-^ny, 

^- ch^.r^ea, in ^ub«*-.i?''ce, that rtrjellant was thft o^*fner sna 

^ cortrol of a certain huii.Urig rina of s cert-iin ftlf;v;itor Uf?§d 

&■-... for the o-irriiif^e cT .frfiir,nt r»r:d r:-<t;-ftcrers tc .j.ici from inn 

V " . . , 

Rt«wer;.U floors of ^--iJ buiiriing by *ri<; tenantr* cf ?;<pf;iif-nt 
in coii.^on; Ihf^t ti.u ;5efen=iant, Feacr-sl "tfift3 Vi -A ute CcKpi.ny, 

Iw^s one of tLo tenants of ^'ur^li^int in f^-;i;l builsin??, inci 
had the ri^ht in o'njjrcn -ith other t^^rants to ^i^f; s'liu slevstor 
for tii*^ purpose of irnnspcrting fr.??roiinn?li»e an..: ?5«rvants ^o 

iana froii! the aifferGnt -^ioorai tn.^t arp'^llRO 5=av^ in the 
eajrloy of sai.i aefftncl-mt fixture cOB;r; ny, r,R a c&/?:c:or4 S'^^rvnnt 
fcr hire ani. *:i9 *h« oo;;trci a/KJ ;-slrfiotien of a general 
foreiBiin of s.iid defendunt; tjuat *iiiife ;^o *?£^vloyfea, it occaae 
iiBceaaary for arjelltie in xhn t £;rf oreiance cf nia -.u-M^a ^,o use 

dant; that it. hocftR© am vast thft rtiity of afiblMT^i^o furriisth 
and iuilntaln Ji resfton.>bly aar« door or Joor« in f?r;ici oitiVcitof 
shaft ^it.r■ iffllsnces Ht.taohed tneroto on the aecond floor cf 
aaiu builciing, -^q t ?t th« RuBie coulci b« »«fely closen or 
opened -s-ithoiit risk cr Injury ^o n ? ftraon «ho had occ&«ion 
to rightfully u«»e it; that Rppcnnnt not regj^rding its duty 
in th/^t behalf, nft/rlli^ejntly fufniwhect snd ©Jintained cfirtnin 
sutORatic Bll<*.ing Iron cioors, vith arpliancea thereto, on 
seid seoon;} floor in «aid ftlevatcr sjr;i:ft in ,.n vmanfe, in- 
fective and datigerous aomlition, ^o thcit by renacn ti.firf:cf 
=£ny Carson *ho ftisibt, in the iIuk courao of buf5inRf?s, HfteRpt 
to open or close nnici ioor or docra ^hil*» nnid <slcvatcr *a« 
being run ina or*?r«tfid, w.ts liable to be? Ci ught and injured; 
that jsprelloe, rhile In tho ex€r<5X«e of u\ie c<tro in pur- 

suance to the llrfiction cf a foreman of the defemiant fixture 
coBtjany, iE«a stteR-fting to op^is ;»r;i4 wlliiinf; iron a >cra, for 
the I'urpoae of raceiviRg orders ^nJ jireotionn thrcigh avid 
elevator shaft fros. the floor hclox, in «nd «bout the buai- 
nesa of sitid dfjfondant fixture, the f5:-;r,e for «i^ftt of 
rep/iir -ini s?afe ccrdition 3t»iok An.i bf^casje ir;H:ov;.bie, ;:nd 
whilfi .'Appellee *;ia -; tteuspt ing to opfi'n the «aam •■.l^hout ffiwlt 
on hif^ \nr% and TTithout notice or vir-.tnlng thj:t :^(=iid f^iev^tor 
«a?5 then nnd th«r^ bfrin,;^, ot.«r^. tect, ^.aK struck, upon tn,i> hesdl 
■ml frcrfcanently In j urea, 

?he:> aeccna Gciint ohsrges ;, riuty en tac y^irt of 
ijp«-il«Rt to emrlcy a ooR.ff:tent, «xr«r"i«"^rier5Ci :in.i careful 
servant to ef«^rate ?i?tid tlf-.vfttcr for the '^isfety :;r ten^tnta nna 
tlieif jsrsrvanta '-^ho hm oociision to fl5htfi!)liy U;^<- it, an-i a 
breach cf sj^iiJ tuty, :*hinre;by :*rr«^31afc ^ae injured. The 
thlrci cjcunt charge*' th^t «-5pf->«.11«nt keft '\n:i s-.-sini?iine'.1 the 
nutoK-itio sllJinf, iccrs ^ith the i^rMart^narop'a ti,wrr-tc of 
s-iid «i«v!itcr nh-^if. in cm unsssf© crftiiticn, contrary 1,0 ths 


- 3 - 

Th« a id 1 1 i oriii 1 count Gh;irf?:e« a jftliure on the t,«rt 
.>f iirpellant tc comply -^.i th the provisions of in cr.liiihncw or 
ta« City of Chicago« tc the Ralntenancft of autOKatlo 

; doors on fr«if;ht wlevr»tor«« 

TJift evl»lcnce tfinls t.c e^tnbliRh th« follovsing facta: 
Arr«51ant «aa the o^n«sr of « five »tory builllnp, tnti first 
loor j'.nd -4 fortion o'' ^hp, ff«contt floor of «rhloh T,Hn leaned 
by hio! *o the Ff>lcr.-il ?tftf»l F rture Cowp^ny, hereinafter 
caiied thft fixture cotor.;sny, "^ue first floor /.«-, ua^d by 

t tfcc fixture cobj- any for auttlng 'ind rrsparlag a-sterijil for 

«teei lockerfl ^ind the Qeccrwi flsor saa used by it as ;'.n .».^:?«?Ki- 
oling rooRi *httre the v^rlouw rnrta of ' ne Icckcr^ «Rr0 .^,?B«»bl6d 
and where th^ lockere wttre prft.r*re4 for ahipKent. Trs fhn 

K»t end of thfi building app#llant Kftinlalne'-t ani ojerated a 
freight •^.n;i rn^iBenger elevistor for the u-^a in coR-sion c*" the 
t<!f\,nts? in tne buillinj?;. The: elftVcstor shaft *aa enclo-^fid 
upon turae ^iaeu with bi ick ^iUi?!, th« one ei,ie .fihick a.iforded 
acoesa to th« iiftvf r.ij floors bf^ing rrctef:ted by -jornigated 
Iron .icora, ^hlch »<jre a<5j-fitrwcievl to op«n ^.nd alc^-e riutoaatl- 
G-.liy at a point u^i.i^^iV O'^trecn ths fn*;iiing arvs.: %he *:io«r by 
being raided or lo-cred, Tnl« fsievatcr '^;i!~ the only Kftano 
of acocas :i"<railh!ble to th?" cs^j^lcyfis of *-hB fixture cog.p;.»ny 
between th® fir''5t rjna 3#5oef.-d floor, *h€ -^tciir^ay b-.-t-Jv^en t»aid 
fiocr«», '.f^hcre it ofsn«i upon the secona floor, bfUnp. in » vor- 
tion of ?!i<i'l floor Oi;-curl*Jii by : nother tenunt. *heri *"he 
(iocrn of th«j sjRvatcr "^ere fuily opened, thr- oj.ening •■v-53 7 feet 
hirh ^nd 5 f^et ^iJe, Each of the .lOftr?* A^'-rs, ihfjref sire, 

. Ajiproxinc'tely 3| fset niph 'n'i 5 fv.&t srldti. The tuev-stcr 
was operiited fey ■jtcaR possftr and *a« {t.ade to avncen-.i by fwHing 
3 cable on thf- ri^sht -Ucio rsnd to dg$?0enci by rulling a euble on 
the left :^i.l8, said oisbles bain?, lociite<i wHhin thR elovcitor. 
There wg3 no signal button or c*ner lievice loo^fted ';t ti^o 
elevator aiFi.ift upon thti a«cond floor, thereby the Qf.erator in 

(IC :.-l: 

•jwi ii>. 

^»0 1 

- 4 - 
oh^rg© cf the sievntor Right bn notiflnd th<Mt th*> elevator 
K&s required to be i^to* pe'^ f<5r ssrvioe si thai, floor, t-^nd th« 
only ftoans covaonly aciiopt^d for th^nt pwrjo*** w-^'' by oi-liing 
tc the oi.arator or by rajplng or y.icking on the ccrrugiitea 
iron aocr«. Nc h>»ndi8 or othKr r-^Rana K5ir» rrovldsd lor G{ «n- 
inf! or «losln? tho doer *'ro« th(; outplrte of thft ftlfTrator. 
SoflaetiKP rrlcr to the n«cM«nt in t=uest.lDn ^t:f loser of the 
t vo elaystor loors hmi hffen out of r(*r';lr. TUs door and also 
thf! jrcoveB in -fhtch it i:>rerat«d at the «id«a i*{vre -.N-arped and 
bent, and th« chilna -vtthln the ftlevntcr, '^nd «hefr«by the doora 
»fore Intended to he ruiaed or lo-^ered, had '^ircken apart f*nd 
»ore rspaired by being fagtftned together with ,vlre«, C*ing 
to the oo-idAtion of the lower .icor <'in;l its oonneotions, an 
deacribed, *>n atteKpi to cpen tho ;loor«, «hen fuHy cIoRea, 
tiltj;er from -within or without the elevator, »<'«» attended 
wJth considerable diffictalty, ana, tfct4r«?for>», th«=. ofrrrator 
cf ».h8 «-levator wtMu-sHy only partially cio«eci tht- ;oorfl,«; an opsc srnoo of 6 or S ircii^sn botaefl!?: th«m, ac timt 
«hen occ5i3ion rticnjired, th«ty Kight be itore r^aaily e{«>ncd by 
-f fording the Of>.csitor r^n onortnnity tc grcfsp iioia of vor 
stand ujon the top cf the lo-';f:r UOi>r arui yw^h it .o^n, Lupn 
shea the Aoovs* *er€ thiis r-rtiaiJy oji-n, Ui« io^er dcor 
3?feen jJitteBjrtRci tc b;^ pa«hfid xio%a K^ould hind at sUhf;? erKJ ijna 
upon th« applioaticn of .greater r^rR-in^jre '^onl-.l £0 lown paiddenly 
and without rf:^i'!t;inc« Rov*ira3 lncii««, nnd *-h'''^ rnjc^Jenly bind 
af^&ln -ini «5tink fsist until -ttiJl nrefxter rrfj^sure ;?a.3 r.r riled 
uron it, ^h«n, in tiu^ osri\i,:.ry (ioirf^f^ of b\5nlri«!;3o, i*. beci-me 
nfices'iairy for ^n sRfloye of th^ fix^virf} i-ioaj^^ny on one floor 
to oofessitjnicate -^ith .m eR> leytj en ♦hR oths^r floe?, trie a^thcd 
cop-SiOrily averted ^^-.n for th«-!: emtloye on cse f;u?cr tc fo to the 
eitjvatcT «hi-sft, and 'oy enllinfj, cr by rsfPinf up'^'^' **^- Iron 
iocra, attract the .-/Attention cf ^n Rp;r.}oyfi en -iie ether floor 
no, in resfonBS ^,o the ^i^fuil, "-^oulii ko to ti*6 e. Aft 9a tor 


'^'\:ifir -i-j -; t j • 

. 5 - 

•hift, r.nd there receive tliw ir-aasage or c»rry or the ccnv^rfta-. 
t.ion. Whether tlie elevator ;ioor» on the firai floor v^}T& 
Qvainatilf kept op«?n or i:lca«t;i :.}(hr9 not clearly i^irei^r, but 
..a tiifi cioor« en tn« seoond floor ^ere or*in'irily ii«rt open 

• or 8 inclies and i^s ihft ^l&vuXox ifhaft wj,3 ooccKonly u?*ea 

.s ft convtiniont .»n! sfficlent R.«?in« cf cosRuniOiitlan in ti*© 

..^nur stated, it ia fr, irly lrjf«rnbl« froa the ftviJence thfc t 
it>e doora on the fJr«t floor ^aro orlin'srily k^pt o.cer. m 

MifficiRnt -ilattRce to nffcri nr orrorttjnity ^or flnch B:i^thcd 
of oo ^unlcaticn. On October ", 1SC9, •'.ppftllee 's.'.s K^f ioyed 
by th#? fixture cofepiny in wrecting loeker» on the seocns* 
f joor. At r^Xi&iX 4:45 o':?lock in th*s afternoon as arrt^ileo 
vaf? .ibcut to tiivfe Lia ■.^i3y tijuft cheok arprevncl by the fore- 
K^n of the fixture coaspmy on the second floor, n call fro* 
the first floor ^:*« het.rd at the «?}«?y?itor ah^^ft on the f^eccM 
flcor. Th« foresiiaR told apfeH®*' *^ E^ *^'^''« ''f^® '^h^t wae 
■5.r*T'ted ':ind in resronae to such ;U.rci?tion sfptsnee i^^'snt to the 
elevator sh'-sft Tehtttn he fo'jnd trie doors orer, thfe '.laiial u stance 
of P; or 8 incnee, ?or the rurpose eilhar of iinnbllnf, hia 
to better near the coitKsUJsiontion, or of ij.c;cir.g hlai«if:]if in a 
position ^hrre he «oula look intc -r'nd Jown th^j slsvntor -^Ad 
see thtf r«r»on on ike first floor, .ni |cj.ian ?,raHpe,i ttiC tcp 
cf *he loafer door ^ith his n? mis itno. attog-ij ted to j uari it 

..jt, Tn rsf«j"cr!?5e to hi?« effort the ioor ??licl ;io«n h .**o>b 
inches tc a roint ?»:'5rrs it b'^cfxK'.ft bound, ^hfti-fnicon he :i;. riled 
^renter force nnd thfc ioor thon si irt down •-, fe?» inches further 
80 ;^\ri^enly an;! rapidly thet hi?? body ve^^f? thrown for^?.rd .mA 

Lo»n ufon the door, nnd hi a he^id v.s5 rroiooteci in'o the 

©■©VJitor shc^ft. At that in-it.:.nt the ?Uevv*tcr, vshish w^^s 

aeacsfiaing in thfi .'?nfjft, struoK uvfellee or. the back &f tm 

head -snd oaunei the injuriss G&s^i.i;-ir,ea of, "rior to th« 

cocasion in cjueation ;>.}:{ fillfte hv:- never RiteicrtRd to cren 
or 03 96 the elev:stor isoor?, or F;,on© to the alev-itor -hs^ft 

- 6 - 

for the lur^tose of rftapondlng t.c & anil by anyone froa the 
firi^t floor, or cf calling to ;;nyone uj on thut flopr. 

Arpell«e h.'»4 given no oi^.rjv'il to th« orerotor of 
eieviitor to stop th<7 elevator ut the sKooncl floor ana taare 
waa no cu«to« retiuirlng t.ii6 orer«tor to stcf the ftlcvfitcr 
iit the eeoond floor without a si^tnal. The oferstor Jiaa no 
knowledge or r.^ana of kr.o^lcdg^ thnf &t thf; tiv.e^ in question 

if&llee ^rni \n h place of d«rig«r sai no auty ■^nn imposed 
upon the orer.*xtor to ancertain ThRttior cr not sjor.c person 
scight bp in th« «3evRtor ^shnft beneath the: desoendirig «leyf«tor. 
ThP ejerator '^^3 desoending noiwelftisnly sind appellee had no 
knowlKfige thut it "^^s in fact .leac«r.cSing, 

In the vie«f we are con/st rained to take of the caac, 
it T^iil only be n«ce^«ary tc ocnaicier ami determine ooe of the 
nuBi<:rou8 »iue«tion« raiaecl by Bpr«llant Uf on thn reoor;U 

It in settled Inv; *i\p.% g, 3 indlord who r*?nt9 different 
parta of his hiiilding to vjrlouss ttsnant'^?, resfsrvine? the 
elevat rs, hallfi, -ttairways J^nd other HpyrosiCiiR^ for ihe ooe*- 
K.on u'Hft of hi?! terj.4Bt3, la urja*>r an irufHeiS duty to use rftysion- 
able csre tc Keer atjch in3triiK.snt.ilitit33 firKi , auc«#0 in » 
rftasonably safe con.ljtion, j^n.j if? llnble for in;jurl©?s to 
.'raons i«^f«lly tssing «uoh InfTtfW^ientaii^le^ :ind riaoo«, 
rfjuJting froit; a failure to ii:tfoem ta;?t uvsty, ?hoRin^^»r Co . 
V. Krvnn. 219 111,, ^H^; Mu^-llcr v. t-;iclrHt , "5:; l"!!., 630. 

In th<9 o.:i?ie -it >:?)r .-ippeilar-t ■•'-.'-s-'s une*«r r^n ir.? lied 
4uty to ftxpfciae rfie^or!-;bl«j capft to -.efip -^ind K.',intain ^he 
elevator in his bTill'tlrif i?; a r«:iJ50risbly nafe? ocv:dl*icn, iJnd 
•o exf<rciee rftaacn^^iblit care to 0}i-;.r3t« tiiS! e2t.«v?itor in r. 
re^t^scn.ibly «nfe s«nr«r. 

If at Uui ti«ie he ^i-,'^ iniurad jirpa.Kiea »'<;« i-4;'ht- 
''n'lly enj.'ii^ftvi in an:i about thf?^vntor or the elf^vatcr ^haft 
in the perforKarice of a service, cr In h Garacity with rearect 

,? T.>1 


- 7 - 
to «hloh .-ii:r:« ilfint o«?ed to hln the duty to exp-rcise rc»i5onable 
car© tc k«or ani i(»iint»in thft elevator .tcor« it: a rea«»or,-ibly 
safe ooncJitlon, »e should not ho»it«t« to hold, ur.-ipr the evi- 
denoe, that arp«31r.nt hsjj f'ijjod tc dittahnrge ^ucu duty, but 
we cannot to hold upoa tills reoord, 

Tno pi'inoiFle that *here there in no legal ciiity to 
exsroise c iro t,hRr« c^^n bo no wictionc-bl* ne.srllgence, saa 
fully recogjilzs.'i hy irpellefi In hia aecirijratlon, vvhfjrein it 
is alJagea th-'^t it ^.\ti tha luty of aipc'lsnt tc furnleh i*n<i 
fcaiatain a reft!»onably ^nfe Joor In thp elevator «!haft «ith 
ajrllancaa Httaehed th«reto on the second flcor of anid build- 
ing, 90 t.Mtt tnp ^arce nc«ld b« P'^fely olc^ed or or enea *fi*:hout 
risk or injury tc .tny rfcr^on sho had oca ,i a ion _t£ ri.'htfuily 
u-ie it . 

In McAncireya ?. C. L. H. .S: F. ?!y. Co .. :"^rs Tli., 
:i?j«, it ia «:aiii: 

■A rv:raon fe.y l»« niilty of r. ftc;'iigent or r«c.kls»9 ast 
-al ?*till not be li'.bJe tor acliQfV.hle ne.--Iiifef?ce, Li.>>5ility 
oniy follo-wa t n^^gllsent or rftcVleaa act TheR the party 
guilty of the act owes tc the r '-'ty inlurcrd s<>s>fr iuty -*h.tGh 
is violntefi by the coffF.lssion of ♦hi- ofigligent or reoiileas 
act. 'T'hOB.Fson on '^cjl Agence (wol. 1, aec, 3,) sriy«: '^hftre 
tuere ie nf:^ ie'£jl duty to exerelse c'*re th«rft can be no 
i>Gtionabie necl if^fince. T';erRfr;re, it i« Fee«5on«5d tfi^t a 
plaintiff '7U0 ?;rcuncl3 hX^ e-ctlcn uyon the Reglif:«?ncs of the 
ilefemjant eu^t show net only that the con^uot of the defendant 
wag nt\^llfcerit, bn^. -ilao thit it -.^i-j* a violation ci' sioi&e d?ity 
?/aioh the aeffinoisrit cwect to hica,' Ana in '^•jfthop ©Ji Non- 
ConT'iCt L'i.w {t«r. 446) it i« f»aivi: 'To ssu^^tain an action 
tot cejligente th« jplaintiff mir>t iiave siulfereci a i«?g:al 
injury '"hereof he i« entitled to cor-rlsin. T.:;e?efor«, 
however rrci.t the :lef6r<.;»nt*a negligence, if it '*ae oo&fcitted 
'^itholIt vlol?^ting a.ny disty -^hioh h«^ ovrea, either itlrfectiy to 
the r-I'iintiff or to the public, in x-i matter ?^hereof he had 
the ri^fat to rivall hifreelf ,*****thsra i^ nothing *?hich the 
i«« ^iil reriresa,'" 

In Ohicftfo i:. T, Co. v. Oie^e. r:29 111., r^ec, me 
rule i« -tated thus: 

•The first re-nuiaite in ft^tr^bilshing u«giifenca is to 
*?ho« the existence f aoR.^ duty 'ind its violation. HeKiigonce 
conalrtts in the violation of i .iuty O'slng by the pstrty 


aiiu ^v 

T ess 

'.y .M^ ^-^'f .■ 

■ i ' ; • .1 u ^ V ; ; n ' ; : i h j ' 

, - 8 - 

Inflicting the Injury to this rer»cn Injured, Back of ftv^ry 
in^stunce of nefjJtgonoe wuot be found h duty to the individual 
GOitri .inlng, an observance of rfhich would tuive 3VoicIea *be 
injury. Tc ati-te the rrlrcirle in oth«r l-jnguaRe, In <5v«ry 
cane iriwolving actionnblft nr-.lipence tl.erfs atuat exiet >?ree 
osnfcr.ticil elftKenta: First, thf «xlr»tf:nce of a iuty on vhe 
; :rt cf thtf rerson cLurfre-J, tc rrot«ct the comflairiinf, r -^ty 
frote tiie injury reccivm*; secjcnd, n failure tc jf^cforn. t):&t 
autyj and third, ftv. Injury rpsullins frot; J^uch failure, "^hen 
IhOi^fi clcRenta concur +hey unitedly constitute ftC*)OJiftbJle 
neijiigeiioe, and the a>)fler,oe cf any of t./j«'56 «»leK.ents renviera 
♦■he plRarfing bad or tli*> evidence insufficient, a« ttis c^sfc 
a.i.y be. (3 Gocley en Torts, - 3vi ed, - r» 1^11, find cases 
c i ted . ) • 

Thaiee is not n acintijlft of avidenc* teming to 
«ho« that in attsRi ting tc open the. ftlevctdr clccrs ;:t U»fe 
second ficor for ♦ne Furpo»»© cf eoT;iBitinio?itinft by r;<? ins of t^e 
elffvator «haft yith ra poraon iiron ♦he first floor, ftpr«iie» 
fiufi acting in th#> TOper •ii«?charge of <"ny iuty, with re«j«ct 
to which rvppellant os.e<} hlK, a reciprocal auty to exftrcise 
re^somsbie csrft to Jieep ancs feyintntn 3.-4its. fliivator doers in 
a rci>8onably aafe conciition. It io uncr.r tro^tirted th;>t the 
ftcchaRisK '^hf.reby tht ♦? levator :iorjr» «ers opfened i^nc- cioaed 
^s<5 Ioc:4t€d within th<> elevator rihrnft, smi ^aa under th«< con- 
trol of the f)le^v^ter orcrstcr, who, .nione, *vri« chargati ^^ith 
the duty of crening r»n<i clcsin;^ sRia r^oora. In tttCKpti^g 
to open the risers cf thfv ?'lfiv:jtor aTrrlit.'e -n^. rscting v/hOly 
without the ar;Ojr:-e o^ hx^ v;Kf.icyment, 'irwi iit? on lnt( rp'.!=;d-i.l'" r, 
^c shott arr^^jliint o*?ed no auty 7r>ve tn«t of ret "iiJ.fu.;iy 
injur inf; hiS;. 

If tne auty h';,i devolved ui on ->rrejl]ee *o or.en 'he 
.oorn, and *hila attfiai ting to ac ^c for thsr {ur? o*je of 
airuriling th^ oi«rator to ttop the aU-vator, or for the p>3r- 
roKK of bCifdlng thf: <?l«v-itor, -■ r for -sny e^-h^r ] r;t.itini--.t6 pi* 
fO-:i«-, .ml he h-:«d been Injured by rf^^;:'^on of ? hf; \inr?Hfe fjnd 
■.i<?fectlve ccn.litlor of the -tocra, « ^hol'iy s-il .rer^^nt uucetion 
.^oulrf be fresented. 

:inlf:;i r-.Tl 

{ .iiJi 

- 9 - 
b« I ncorj orated In the? judfTcer.t of *.i\in court. 


ri'>!riNa c.v- FACT: 

*e find th.Kt tt.& Iniury to aT.F«n<*fi coitr 2rsin«d of 
in thif? ca^e »if;is not occa!?loned by %hn failure of vtpr<^i3v«nt 
to t erf or» any uuty sshlch he owed to HjfeiJee, 

370 - 18414. 

184I.A. 443 

SALTER J. KJiSSIr"? et .a., ) / COOK COHSTT. 


\ / 


\ / 

\ / 

\ ?hlo Is 3n arre/9l froK a decrea of th« Surcrior 

Court tll^Rl^aing apreU^^nt'a bill for ^nrnt v-Df equity, 

i The bin ailigea that prior to Novf;Kt>«r U, 1910, 

ai'Vellant^ J<&n M. Cgrlnon, is?t« tii* o<^ner of t^enty-eif ht 

suaren in |fche 5Jortii'Sid« a«t!»h and Door CoKinny, & ccrr orsiticm, 

liiivin? an i^thorlsed snd prtid ur c^rlt.^l of ^6,000; that 

«bout ^arch 'li 1910, the othnr thlrty-t^o ??hjvr«3 of i=;tcck of 

*si;i oOKpauy «©re pMrobcissed by ^ipf-silcea, 'Salter J, Ka»sia 

an-j laliua K. Levine, aixtftsn «fi.^r«5?> by «&ohj th?^t f-.t the 

annusil atockholdpra* nRetln.f;, helvi Jf":5rch 1, 1910, afv f^il^tnt 

and iipfell<^G9 ^f^re elected ;ilr?':otor?, ami -vt '* :iir^ctcra* 

aseetlng folloi»ing, Ha^ssiu .va * eiecteit j resident, C ri??or, vice- 

frii^ident -srici Levine ^ecret^iry ^ini treasurrtr; *h it it wa^i 

understood by arp-elieeg th::t hrfel iant ??;:.;- not to t-skfi any 

active rss^rt in the coiiiiict of the b'.aineBts, but tii-,% -rieiiees, 

in CGn3iderstir>n of thnir «r, [t-tjries, shmld devote ?,i.?-ir 

entire tjKe to tii*= bunineraJi; thft :vr>rfill,'..nt h;'.B taken no 

active part in the biisinesa, btit ^he .«nK<' naa ?;lr:oe bofsn 

actively c^rrii^d or. by a ff a 11 a fin; thnt rr?iotic;ii ly the entire 

buniji©?5? of tne coE'.r.Uiy in Ions bf?t«een >-f".roh l5?t ;i?irj Nov^Kb-sr 

IfSth in encii year; ^ frosi "rjr?;h to Kovftfiiber, I'llO, but 

one airectcra' j^eetin^, '•^h^ held, a* -^hinh R.ceting no rerort 

of thfi coniition of thR businsns sf&s &ade, Thf? hill fvirti:er 

>»lle«?e9 thiit for aeverMl vfi^ra rricr to thf: p^jrrohase cf ^♦ock 

81 - 0^ 


by 5|pelle«» the profits of the bu«Jine«» h^ii been «iEfi31 unA 
no aivid«rKi« hsd be«n jaici; t.h:»t upon a reorganisation of 
the cottp'iny the sto<?khol<1er« had paid in ?4,CC0 ever the 
par v&iu8 of tho $?took, including certain R:«rchanoit«e v<iiu«d 
iit §3,000i ♦.h»t the bock<i» cf account of tho coftpnny were 
cofitinuouBiy in ch^rgft of Hu -sis nho r«iD«inc<i in the offica 

irid RanagAd ail the finanoiaZ affaire of t,.« cottpany; that 
Levin« vlevated :ili liia *!«;« to sriiing goods aw«y frcaa ti.c 
office; tfirst on or fibout Scvr!B.bRr 1, 1910, Ha.=;si9 aesiriag 
tc purch&ne at;relljant*? fltock offered *c ray Uiis *4,oOO there- 
■"or; that ftppelifrnt asVed hitu '-h s t tihe rrofits of the bu«jinesB 
hiyd beo.ii for 1910, sr.d told hire thut th« f rice o^ the etock 
«ould d«^pend upon whftt the rrofit« had been; that Ha-.^sis 
rfctlied the rroTita h<\n bet?n fro* '*1,3(X) to 1-^,000; thet 

rreilsnt then told Tlit^JHlft that the leoney i rB^fit^unlf invested 
by -.5- ellant, together with his'i i roportionate ;'.aur«; of the 

roflts for 1910, rmounted to H.orc thnn |4,i>00, ana he there- 
upon ;leollned thti off at', that i. f*?-* <'ir:y3 ♦•here^tftfir Ha ^fsift 
offered to r-iy t5,0f;.0 for arpfell^int's stock, of ^hich ?3,000 
*e-i to be in ca«h and $2,000 in ncfif a, -«,hich Ha-=i?i3 l};«n «:X- 
hibited \o api5#ll;iftt; th.^t grjelisnt ,;.i;i not tafir. ar.cepi nalh 
offer, but fesiced for tifte? tc Icck up '^-b'^ crf-iit of the ier.<5on3 
*ho enctcraed s?nia notes; th.-^t en Scv.^stber 11, 1910, ?.hfen both 
, rj^eilees caB(« to are £,f:f *il;;nt libout th*'- } VircuMe o/' isii? 

lock, r.ffellsRt stated ic ihi ~^i9 that he replied oa his. for 
a corroct etateitent of the- jrofits for i'^/10, an;i i-r^in fc-^V^d 
V,^-.~-in '.That .^«id rrofits h."d been, to rhlch ia-^juiry iiur-js 
rej lied ^hit the profits wttre frcit ?1,8C0 tc f2,000; that 
Lfivine hi»^ard Ssvid re^re^efitati on*?, but r- i i nothing; th-;t 
rflyln?: u; on ^aiA rerreaent^itions -'-neHrint nold and aelivsred 
!.i«- siiid Ri-:sre?5 to uf r«il«e«» ^"or •f&,CxT»j that one ftLirc cf 
';iici ;?tock -*nft rfst«in<sd on thf? books of the cciarany in the 

P! -T^UfVH OB 


n.'iits of apf-ellant, who at th** re iUR^t of I.«vin« oon.»«?itad 
to x-«it«in aa ^^ .iireotoci that, on ,T.-~.miary 16, lOJl, ;irr»ilaRt 
received a notlae o^ u dirwatorra* jRe^tlng to l^e fteld on the 
day following, which notloe nrritetl the y-urr.ose c*" th«? Kefitlag 
to be to (teclar* u divl^Rnd; th;»t on apr^llant'R inquiry 
Lsvir.e tela hi* the rrefitB for 1910 verp ever fir, COO, and 
thst it wfl«« rrcT oaevi to deolaire a ijvi.-iend of t*5,0C0; that 
ifcsteiJ lately thf;re«fter appellant notifind npfftllee5in viriting 
tiiat ^h6 i^i::* ed sale of Lin .'.tgck to th«B: **ts j rocujrftd by 
frautt ani -Viin veld *na tftndered each of there |2,3iXJ «itn i.nt- 
€jre»t and cteK-amled the return of auid -^tock, r^hicii tenvter J«TUi 
deKiinci sr?.!? refuc?e<l; th't ♦hft •.refits for IvlC of over ^12,00C, 
were substrtntLilly dl ffrsrnmi nrior to Noveaber J«t of th?jt 
reir; thtit the p#<id r^: rfteentatlona #«»rs fnlse and fr^suauleat, 
'frti so knc^ti tt-. be by arjPileess and wt^re sudft -^-Jth the; in- 
tention of l«du«in5 at;:f;«31ant to act th«rr«cr; 

The bill r^^J^ th.-^t the rurohaae of (?aia ^h-^ree of 
■itoek b«? «6t aside; thnt appellees Ws rt'^qtjiren to refnrn ssid 
=?i;i.-ree tc cjprellant an.*^ to acoount tc f.r- r::3J?int for the 
iiyi,iend« raeeived thrrean. 

In *h€ir Beyer-il i-.n??»f?Te tc tlv*? biJl nrp^^ll^jjjQ oeny 
tii-t :' ractic;i]ily II the bvisjr.ess of the c«j«r.FMiy 'sHn .lone be- 
tsoen Js^tfch 1st sTid KcvRfi^ber i5th of f^^^ck ysar; ^^eny thst 
;ny agr®«E^Rt ^sj>» gade tc taKR "vn inventory in .^tf;?. tftaber iind 
.;iie|7e tn^t thft inventory ^>i^- taken st ^.^.e tiriUisi *i«ei vitjny 
that iiprelisnt ?ttitetS to Ha~«jis thi.t the rrics ^^t A-hich a.J,|"^el— 
lant *c-uln ^«ii hi^ .^ttxsfc 'scUi uar&ncl u.on tbi f70''its for 
lOlG, or th:,t Ha^-^is -«t;tt:ea to nvrf^Mhtit th-*t tb<i rrc^'itB h^d 
h-:(-in froa |l,8C0 to *^,G(X), or that STpeHsn? =it*tejci ^h*t 
hfe re.lle*l Uf-on Ha.?«i3 ft-r -j correct i^tntenent o^^ th« r.rofits, 
or th<*t afpsllant ^asi in-Uieed tc »ell hi-^ -".*ock by iny vr^'crEi- 
aticn .:?« to ri'Ofit'** or th^jt -;rofit3 xmcv.nting to ;|1L,C0C ^era 


- 4 - 
mib«tanti.4ily oarnad prior to Koveeber 1, I'^iO; aeny that 
HasT^^iti tsade istay re|>r«Bentationa ^itatevfcr 'Cai to pTOfito, or 
tii*^t he. knew at the ticp of th« rtscOtiationft »yhat thfe ycofile 
*er«i deiiy th.'it Levine hesirJ Hafjnila a-akc any roirrssentationfl 
&« to J refits; all«g« ti;rjt nrp^Hant hi: i satte orrortunlty aa 
afreilee« of anoertitining what tia« profita Tfura, nai that 
ttfp«r»lant w»9B 7"uj ly cognisant of tne condition of the bu*«ine«a 
and thcit «\s vice-f resident and .llr<?ctor, sfrpeliunt huA sjcccss 
to the bcoko of oocount of the coRrcmy, 

Upon general rerllorttiona being fiJed to a. id unawers 
thH o'iuBe «<4a ;:«.'« rd by the chn nee 11 or. 

Tft« eyi'lence bejiring wpon the pfiain ir*?nie of fact 
in the crt^e, n^.Eeiy, ^heth^r or not the aliftged faltie r^'iXm" 
3«!itation3 relative to tn«~ profits of thtj buaineos for ta& 
ye^r 1910 ««re Kade by Kasiiia una ff«r« concurred in .;n-i adopted 
by L«vinfe, is irreconcilably oonfiicting. 

The evidence diaolosefi that aubss^uent to '...rch i, 
1920, the aotive «rfinager£«ttt of tft^. buein^ai} kkr entrusted to 
itp«ii««9 j^r.c acquired th«ir «ti:«k in the coEpany sietferal 
year» aftwr apcsilimt bt?Ci4Bi«j a atfxjkholaer; thi-t -luring the 
tie^e aprftll««^ *?«r8 sctlvsiy ocr.luiJtiri^ the hri3in«*ns, ^nerc 
.'"ere frft'juent .ii3%«naiotie >>ijt'.ssen tihea,, ari^^lr.^ c\;t of tfi^ 
chtTge by each tfest tht; otb«r «Hi> not suffiGl^ntiy xo^ivfc in 
fro<3tsrir.g busiRejaa; th.^t ^avtiTiil lix-ttc tors* s,f:*:iingB i»erei 
helG t" cor.3ii€r stiOh cnnrges .'^na courter cn.srires, ::it '^hioh 
lieetiags ar-feilarit, corV tnry to ti.c <->t*iter:.*irit in hin hiii, 
«us i:roneflt, an i »?oiii;-ht to ;.-rinf ;.bfut -^s reconciliation be- 
t**»©R rsiyeiififio; th«t ;^ts; thf^ relation het-?eer3 'iprKl^ees 
-crtinued 80rue«hat '^traineei, Kii9«i« corjolihied to r»tte8.r t to 
frocure a controiaing irtorfi-H in the eo&rany ^y furchasing 
the fttock c'-ueti by ar.f.ellgnt; that &fter fios.t preceding 
fi*! get i at ions b«t«etift iiil n.rties, -^herein, at ts^P reoaeat 

I ■VJ-\ 

- a - 

of Levins, It «a« itgr^ed tirnX he ahculd be give*: an opjortunlty 
to rujrch»«« one-fesif of «rF«-l'*n^'» heldirii;©, nrr«nant on 
November il, 1310, 30l.i «nd trstnaf erred fcurtfien ihr;rc» oaoh 
to Ha««i» Ana Lovine for |5,000; that appeilant »«« iLsre- 
after retalred a« a noKinal Urootor :f the ooEf.tnyi taat 
.ifter an tnvp-ntory «n.ffl tHken on reos»*--er .11, 1910, tfta booka 
of thi* coRj>aRy c!l"9c lowed Ih.-it thfi rrofitu of the bu«lnefla 
for 1910 fjKOtintffd to *ll,6n4.84; thnt ftrp«Hiint «.»<» notified 
of « iir«Gtor«i* mr.eting to bf. a^lcl on Janwi^ry 1*?, 1911, for 
the purpo?*© of d^cUirifes a ttivi:iend; th^t on the asR© day 
irT«'lant nctlfind af;rell««s of his j "f f oae tc »«t a«iae the 
a.^le of hl*i stock ^n'X ^t^nifire-x to ^rP^Jlees the j.urohaa« 
•; rloe th«*refor ?ith int^^rttat, 

Appellaat testified th** wh^n H;v89i« first a ■: reached 
hlK on ^oveKb<?r 3, 1910, ^or tne ryrpo^e of n^rctiating; for 
the purchase of hi« stocK, Hsfi-giB ir.<i!iir@d if ^ipeiiant sfould 
9€ll for |4,&00, fS,5G0 to b« [.sia in cash ami $2,000 In nntea; 
tsi.t he asked Ha^^is ho* siuch uoney had bctRh aad« sjinee MarGh 
1«,«-, 1210, ina thst Kasijis r«i li«d, |l,BOO to •^::,000i thut 
..« rh«n told Hssflla he fould not ^eil for H, 500, but aia not 
te.ll Has?«l9 that hs wo'.iSd 'scil for SSjOOOj thf>t tv«c or tnree 
uiys *'Oilo«ir}?, fia«fli3 offi^rect hia #5,GC!0, ani sjMffte prepared 
to pay 1.^,000 in oash and t-,CX^O in not**3j thrit hf told 
H:i^'i<» ha .^owl^l a c€r t th«? offer rfii^finf. on tbt^- rr-tjth Qf the 
^tstesiKnt that ^hn profits of the bUrUnei?-'? were "tor tl»?-00 
to 1-1,000; that L«5vintj ■^r,»i present cin:; hsr^rd F-?M5';ia a^ike 
9Mld 3t"itaK6nt« 

Ghariea ^, C^rlaon, a nerhe'^ of .^rp«5ilant, tei^tiftgd 
thjiv h« -is^a ?:rs5sent dtjrinjj h portion of an int; r^ife?* bs^t^esn 
1' reliant affei apr^-Hees; th.^t in fRiipoRse to nrpellARt'^ 
Btatfiifcent that he «r-sa swrprlaed they had isade no Rorfi s:cn«y 
thnn $1,800 or fjljOOC, na?"?i.^ «aid, "Ye?, ocsEpetition is kr-en. 
We hnve to fi^nre va^ nlo^^r, , I up. ket;;ing tab in;! i» in 

'SI 19-+ 

- G - 

fieured uown fine.* He. furth«r testified th^t nppelJlgnt 
?Ua ftft nouid aRli tfift ^.tooJt en th« btjftlB of Hsssis' ?;ti.te- 
fi.ent cis to j:roflto» 

W«. Schalier, a «ltneaa called by 8f.p«ll«nt, ieati- 
ficd tli*it HaDsle arrii*"^ ^<> ^'i"*^ *'^ ©mioriie a note for ^1,000, 

nrJ that In rQRpon«« to hl« inc.ulry «?hai he ^ani«u i* fcr, 
Ha-^-sSa sail he did not liVft to tell, but he i.a<i a chance to 
fr.ake *:5,0C0 or ^4,000, 

Appellees testified that when they piirchiised tlmlr 
etook 4n Search, ISIO, sppejnant tcld thorn that Kh«Reve»r tiusy 
desired to pircharse his !«tcck they cc«:2d havf? it for *4,3-JC, 
■ lua fit interest, »m<l th&t hi*? subsequent selling i.fice of 
f5,000, 'Vfis ixrti^eii at upoa that baslw; tl.&t jft tr.ct tlcf^ the 
I neg4tiatioiia for the rurcha^^e cf »rP«n«e*8 stock Tcre pend- 
ing, no lnv»»ntcry of the proT«rty of the company had b(pen 
taken and th«y h:i4 no defSalte Jnforitstion as to the rrofits 
of the bU3ineB« for the year, 1?10; that a ctnai'lerftble 
v>lUKe of btiaineaft «a« done bntrseen the date of the *?aie, 
KcvoRber 11, 1910, ^nA th« ♦ of the ir-vsntory, -ja of 
r'eceaher 31, 1910j tsat t^ny K^ul« no ^ty.tceent to ay.j^'^iiant 
rfeg^^srdlng thf: aecunt oi' tne rrofjts of the mi-?ir:enn, ws ♦fisti- 
f\&d to by his; that ar>r.sll;jnt :sa3 SnfoTKea by thaie frc^^ tie^e 
to tifi>e 'J'-iring the yfi:>r, n^. tn t2sn vwiuisa of ou'^jn^isa ♦h-it 
?f<te bo in? done by the ooierany. 

*he fjvidonce tend a to ^nov? th^^t il- vmn rxTiCt lci=;lly 
iffifOftmi^le to 4et?:risine the rrofits cf tfiS tu^iin^^m ^jsntil in fta? taXisn, .~na th'-4t avi-ellees ^o Infcraed 3rpeii.-»jit. 

T,.ere are scvf-TsJ c! i scrap anoieft, jiriocrj'5i<-. tenci^s 
:' amd oontra-iiotion^? In tiie? tsi^tiisony of ??ow-s of tna ^Itne-^neg 
i; caiied by ^.-sr rsllnnt, '-^hish teni to (il3crn-:jit thfcir tei^tiivCny, 
■^ilcr 'hfi reasonable limits of -.n ci inion of tais cr^irt rr^^- 
ciudie a ctetaileii xnalyrsls of th« ts;?ti»-.oriy of *<.f^ ^y^'vor.-tj 
«-itR83«es», we ur«5 fully r erai?r.ded, after a e ireful co-'-»i^*5tiS«- 

1 ' rton 

- 7 - 
t, Ion of th« 0vld«?»c«, thst th(* finding of the chancellor, ^ho 

e.i^nifent *f» cf thfj avitienoe. In tlzis J'taie cf the record 
•** ■- ra r«quirec5 to ccnflrw euch JTir.dilng, Cgden v. gtg;v>^-,yi!B, 
1:41 in,, 556. 

Appellee* fiuateir.ed nc i%x<ch fidueiary rdation to 
..ppeJlsint ae caHt upon tlH5ff. the burden of e««-^5 Mlshing tiie 
fTorri«ty find fslrnenn of ♦hfi trtineocti en, tlroker v. Kid- 
Ian.i ^toftl Co ., Zlb Til., 444j B-tivrien v. ?a?lor . 1554 111,, 

^or ^hP pwrpose of cilaoredltln^: tL** tRstiaony of 
up^llee, Levlne, a:p«Hsnt cffered in RTrldence Lcvine*^ ifsti- 
tion for his .U^ccargc Ir. bankruptcy, th»? report of the 
fcf"rrrce cpfuaing Jiuch dificharf.e, ami » transcript of hla 
te^^tiBiOny on iho hs&rlR*? ef objectior,!'* tc such t;if?chcsrr'«, 
Tseas rTOCf?e<il«g» In b.'snkrwptcy Tter® had long rriex Ic thf=! 
transsotion In controvrrsy ant? ha;l no relation to iny profer 
subject of Inquiry in Xh& csas. Tut' rroferrec! eyi-'.sniee veais 
j^ roper ly fencJudcd. 

Tsaer© in nc revftretible error i*": t.;.e rs-ccrd. ?;«;.; ine 
u-.QTtie iix --ff irsf.ed, 


H ji 7 worn 


T OT O , >To 

3D9 - 16445. 

WORTH *^;5«ICA, 

A| jellint, 


LOCAL K'O, 10, /i. F. of M. et nU, 
Af folleco, / 

184I.A. 444 

Aprr/L Fncw 


On July la, lOCC, xiron an af-rroiriate bill filwd 
in the Circui*. Court by the /Aaer lean VuBioi'ma Union of 
-orth Auu'Ticn (herelnnf*,Rr bnlled t.he Union), arj oertnin 
of ito officers anii. HiCRbs**, aijuinat. thft Chicngo Fsdf^ration 
Of yij«ici:;na, Locfil ¥o. 40, Ajcerlcan Fecieration of Kxisiciana, 
(hereinafter ciiiied tfe* Federation) ^nX Jc»«5erh F. ?"ink3er, 
-nci certrin other off leers nnd cumbers of said Felersticn, 
the ohanoellor, after a hearing, nf on th« i i?.ues forited, 
entered a decree ro-tr.. ining qaid iefenaantR from interfering 
??ith Ijindering or obstructing tue K.fiR,^er9 of oou: lain^nt 
crganisation or either of ;%ny of them by threatening or 
augfiestins the opposition cf or,:;rinl:'eci ir.bor unions or thsir 
u.cKbsra in aiish a itsnner 33 tcnda or a*? in calcui:* tod to 
c.iuse any sucii ajbf-ioyern nr -icula-be oroplcvers ^c fe-T or 
believe trouble -vould be caused ?Aic,h Rmrlcyor'5 or 
-ould-be ero.ployera by snid defen.-lant acrr crat ion, its of-Ticers 
cr, or by other nniona *?/^filiited sith the Fe,,er?itjon 
of l^ibor or ^heir meicbera; :-?nd fron intHrfrring -it.h, hindering 
or Ob 5t:riiatlng «:hft HiPiscbers of coK'.f Inlnsnt crg^jni^ation or 
• ny or either of therr. in r/r.t ininp; or re'-ining einFloyitftnt 
aa analoiana by rftprea'^ntinp ami prool:^;ia ing to ciRiJoyers 
or pro9j ective sc-.' Icyera th^t B;eE.berp o^ ccn.x I'linent organi- 
zation are non-union n.en, in such a n.-nner as i^ oalcu.l. ted 

JiJf ;iJi . .1 U.A II-. i: 

- s - 

or f:ill ouu<5e Ruch eKj-loyera or rronreotive ejcplnyera to ^ear 

the orroftltion of defendantu or .my or either of theR;, or 

organlKert l*i>>or or any of its br.inohefl, or indiviuu;<lB cr 

representati«B8 of volunt.i.ry or incorforuted ansociationa, 

Ot! October 12, 1906, 3P.irl .Federation, tor.etKer with «aiU 

Winkler ;:*nci one B. C, Dillon, were, U) on the TCtitlon of the 

Union, rinct after a hftarin,';, a{ijud£;«d icruilty of contftmft for 

a violation of nnid injunction .ml •'<ere punished aoccrUlngly. 

Ag^.ln, on ^UEU«t 9, ISIO, iii on n like [e^i^io" '^n"' h<^-^rinf, onid 

Federation ani «?ald ''inkier, were adjudged p;uilty of and 

puniahed for a WV.e contprrpt. 

On October \, 1911, the SHi-i Mnlcn filed ita/j-oti- 

tion, «her<:in it charged. In RUbstnnce, fto fur as in hc^re 
pertinent, that nlnce the entry of th« decree horeinnbove 
referred to, the (v^icj Federation :inci Jc^eph F. '^'inklfir, tneir 
anecciuten and oo-conepiratore bflon hindering, obstruct- 
ing and interfering v>ith the- etitioner hnd its a';^oci;ite^ in 
the perforRiance of their dntief?, 353 irualciana; tjjut the 
Winkler, prPBident of sriia Federation, hae vi < h othor r^rs^ona 
attemrted to co6;pel and induce by *hre.-'.tfl «nd Inti^d i'ition 
and persuasion the en^ployera of letjtioner rina ita ia^..^oci:ite9 
to refuse and f;;il to ret;.'.in petitioner and ite a^^stcci;- ttss or 
any or of thftR. in *^ eurioy .3 municiane und that 
said tinkler ha« been and if? now preventing r,nd attefcr tin^'; 
to prevent p^rnona by ttireats snc; Intinaidatlon froh. eRy.loying 
petitioner or nny 0^ it*? 3:^scx;ifites? -^vho are jjf-K'pera of rati- 
tioner'?? orfir-)ni?nticn, an.l th»t ??ald Federation ami si/id 
^inHer •)nd thRlr -i^^^oci-- teS and con'^^ederates are nc'-^ oorc— 
bining ani oon-i^rlring tc restrain ;,nd prevent persons en- 
rloyin^ petitioner or Itti fcllon a-?fioci-^te8 frcn. rjo doinp,, 
•ind that said Feder;itlon an:! Sr^id 'Tinkiar Hr\a their rii'-»rx5l'jtes 
■xr- 'I co-ccn«f iratore are conducting theniseiveti in «\ich a 

^ aO 

- a - ■ ' '\ 

it.cnrer a^ tc intlrrldato -ird lrip,hten the tsierloyerf? of your 
petitioner and its afiaoclates; that on AwsrijBt 19, 1011, the 
Cort Theatre CoD!f;any, n corporation of *hich John Oort is 
preaivient, H, H. It vice-prealdtnt and U. J. Hemr'ann 
i« s«or«tary and manr»g«r, oontrolling the Port "nieatrQ in 
ihe City of Chicago, opened said theatre to the public for the 
season r>nd presented a play entitled "An Eivftry Tay Wisn," 
which said play «?aa given UMder ^hrs direction end nanageB,cnt 
of th« fira of Frazoe A Lederer, a partnership ooupoaed of 
H, H. Frazce and Oeorge W, Ledereri thut oaid H. H, Fruzee 
ia the vioe-pr«Bidt?nt of tis\a Cort theatre CoK;p/:ny ami also 
a member of «3id firfii of France & Leucrcri that irior to the 
opening of Raid Cort Theatre on Aupv!f?t 19, 1911, noRotlationft 
for the plfioing o*" an crchestra in aftid 'lort Thea + re hiid beon 
carried on b<*twcen Oviid Herrn;3n, aa Kunwger of nnid Cert 
Thf.atre Company and sr-jid "inkier 'Tnd ijsld Federation, bat 
th.'^t c^inff, to oert'.in unreasonable der-rrands rcy/jriiiniT, the nutr,- 
ber of ruen to cotcpose the orchestra at aaid theatre Bade by 
paid ''inkier and aaid foaftration, said theatre c;c«p,iny had 
refused to coisrly v-ith ^nid deir.anda of i?aid "'Inkier Lind 
said federation and had therefore refu^-.ed to install in B^ad 
Cort Theatre in crcnes + ra cnrrpcped of fed^iration I'.ertbt rsi 
th.:t on Aufruat r\l, 1911, »:he R;.i:l Vv:rrn.-jrn. on be^haif of said 
Cort Ti.gatrfi vOTr/cmy, entered int'O a caritruc* •."<ith Ch.irl&s 
Cuinn, '.,^o if- u number of the Uuio.n, the rettticner nercin, 
^hyrcin said Qulnn af^r'^ed to furnish at u cert: in :;tiru.]'st8u 
prioe e.n orchestra coapciGd of hift:?felf as leader :^na ^lix otner 
Kufliciane, all of T*hich '?aid r;^u^Jic;ia^3 tO(;(ether ^^ith tna aaia 
Quinn '*s3re ^iirc iteKhftr?i in pood i5t'i.ndin2 of ret it i oner's 
crf^iinizat ion, to ■r^5rnlr»h b"U'».1c for the plr^yR snd rerf crr.'ince^ 
tc be tresented st J5;iid Cert T;ifj?;tre; th-it tl;o '^-id Quinn 
orid his 3^id orohea+ra ocfi.a.enced rlr.ying 'it «;;iid Cort Thcjuire 
on August 21, 1911, an.l f rov'.ded KuaJc for «. id il'-y* 

IJ ?*-I.t 

- 4 - 
The r«<'i*ion furtiier chargee the, business of 
a-siA ^irm of Ffi'/.ee * Lej^rer i't +o i rovid© comjihniesj fre- ; 
58nting KuUofil and other pluys throughout the country, nnct 
jt f-roRent there are five corcr^'ni*''* freflenting playa ftntitled 
"Kadam Sherry" and onn corup^ny pre^sentin?, a rl^Y entitled 
■Jvucrin!; Jupiter" in aifferent oitlc« tiiroughout the country; 
that there ia also in the City of Chicago a theatre aa 
th« Illinoia Theatre, ^/hich hae bee.n closed during the ana was about to oi Rn for bU'Uneaa on Septeraber 16, 1011, 
preaenting a pltty entitled, "The Lyiiiea Lion", «hiGh w:;*a a 
tiai^?ioal show j rottuced un-.1«r the n; a nu ji;© me nt of the naid fira 
of FraJiCG A Ledf-rfirj aoid Illinoia Theatre rr.anagetcent 
had «ntered into a contract with a^ild Fsvicrution to furnioh 
Wx oroheatrf* -n* it Ad Illinoia Theatrt? for the^ iiea.ion co!{:s:,enc- 
ing on the openinf? nlf^ht of Bsftember IBth, 1011; thut within 
a fa^ daya prior tht^reto, the aftid ^inklor vron,T,fuliy, ttialicious- 
ly .in.l unlawfully, without juatl f if..ble c^mae and aptinst the 
injunction of court a*temft«d to interfere vsith .nnd 

oh^trnot the s; mOKjbera of T.ctitioner*a crpaniz'-iMcn In 
tiicir ettployKient at aald theatre by 7>tntinp. th^it unJefja ^><.zee 
in-talie^i a federation orchestra z.t the Cort Thnatre, the 
federation crchaBtra under ccntr-sct at tne TiliRoiB Ti.eatre 
*ould not jli^y for thf Cfuning of tiu; lUir.ciB Tnaatrft on 
September IB, ISll, -^nd furtn«r tr.^t unlRaa ??aid federation 
orcneatr:* «b0 in^tolled Kt fjaid Cort TiieHtre +h;.-:t the orches- 
traa f.l;-iyin0 in ijS citjeg ■^hero the "J^'adafc r5h'..rry" inc* "Ju;(,j:- 
ing Jupiter" shows then Veinf otj:;g«d under the dir^otion of 
said FrrsixcB & LeJ.cirsr, •^ert- bf^ing j. resented, /;cnl'i be C'liled 
out and not pern.ittea to pl.:yi thrtt aftervvafda on Septi-. ruber 
15, 3f;ll, th« Hrtid Fra;:ee, one of ♦h^-' emrloyors of JSiud 
Ch rlea Quinn ;uniJ hla nrcheatr't, n-eivib^irs? of peti tionf-ir'a 
organiaation, sftor In.-.rnlnf of the ibowe deaorihed tnre t9 
u^ade by Bald '^inirler to th« said re'>re36ntstivo of =!aid 


Frasea * Leder«r nnd f«arlng trouble «ould be cauned hin; und 
this firm of Frazee A Lederer great loss of ironey cnBue 
if said threat* of aaiti ^inkier vrp»ro c-rried out, f?hioh vvould 
interfere «ith the f reduction of ^fild show at ?»aia TUinoie 
Theatre in Chioago and all ether of Frvi«ee A Lftuaer showe then 
playing ir* various oitiea throup^hout the country, s^ent ^ith 
•aid Herrican and aciid Lederer and others to the headquartorB 
of eaid 'inkier i\T\:i Baid federation and there Riet the said 
Winkler and Bevertil n-eKbers of «£iid federation, who <f.cre ;;iso 
offloere an:i directora of D.iid federation; th-t at aalu time 
and place said "^inkier in the rro^fir'C* of nuid other n.eR.bore, 

offioere and directors of said fedftration, under their :aithor- 

ity and with their ?--rproval, after/jgranting of ti:je restrain- 
ing order hereinbefore ref«rred to ana r.ith fuxl knowledge 
of the effect, te^nor -na score thereof wroncifully, iralioiouely, 
unlawfully r^nd without justifiable cause ona agiinat the 
injunction of the court atteKptod to int?»rfer« ^^ith and ob 
a^ruct the «5riid ircitibera of j:eti tioner's organization in their 
eaif.loyirent at said Oort ^'i.sjitre, by f^tating to Qrud Fra/ee, 
and ♦ the cthf^ra present at «r-id ti^e .-ind place, +ii;^t the fif^ht 
of f?aid ^inkier and sejid fe-isration was ag.-in^tt said Frazee 
<ind that unless the nwid Frazee •■or>2d rut a fec^erstion oroheis— 
tra in the Oort TjjRatrfc, s'^iid ^inkJer i^nd pnxd fedorr^tion 
?J0uid not furniah r»n orc!he^-^ra couipoaed of ifederation li.cmbera 
for Pny & Le-e-rer liifms and tli.-^.t the show -ivbout *■ o be 
presented on the opening night r^t p.ald Illinois Ti^eatre Ciifr.e 
under tne b;>n, &nvi alao thv^t said ^inkier -.^ni said feneration 
would crll out -.11 the crche^trrts? throughout the cc^jntry in 
the theatres «?h^rft l^'razee & L<^'ierer ^tiQuQ entitled ">^.':.jani 
SuCirry" ana "Juaping Jui iter* ARre bocVedi th-:-t in oruer 
to avoid trouble '^ith tne crcheatrji!? ^laying for the Gtiu-.-r 
coEpaniea in other oitiea presenting ^hs Vmzee & Le-iersr 



- 6 - 
shows, if said ^inkier und 9ul<i f«cieratlon carried out their 
threats, the said Cort Tlieatre oouir-any notified said vuinn that 
his ocntr.iot at -^aid Cort Ttiftritr* f-oultl te on Cotobsr 
1, 1911; th-.t a^iid Quinn an;1 lii'^ orchestra have ?jeen forced 
out of B^.i.i Hort Theatre and an orchRStra oompoaed of noinber* 
of SKlci federation initnllad ct said Cort Theatre; thut the 
^^ervicea of said Qulnn anc*. hia orchestra then r laying unaer 
contract at said Cort Theatre wore thoroughly =»«t i«factory 
to the aeiid nerrjuunn and the Siiid Frazee ini the Cert Tnftutre 

Tlie retitioner rerreoents that the said Fsueration 

nd said ^in>ler, ahcnld hf. ii:,:iin and aevrrely punished :^or 
oontpffijt of oriirt for a rortitition of =>;;ld violation ;.a ?!nt 
forth in th« re*-ition; "Therefore, the retitioner r rays that 
a rule may be entered herein directing thr;t naid Fedez'ation 

and ''inkier and each of theis to •show cause, if any they have, 
why they and each of thSK shcnild not be aftacnea ^md punished, 
as for a conteapt of thifl court in aiding, ^foe-'-ting and ;>vsai8- 
+ lnp in violating »?;.id injunction Jirretofore av.'Mraed by the 

In respon-^e tc tiie rulej to rtho^ c:;')?!©, r.? prayed, 
the reapor.dents :in(i^^red th;^ retiiion, i^nyin;^ its n'terial 
allegations, rini upon a hcririnp bv»*ore the .j.^r.:e clivticeilor 
who directed th« isnuance o^ U\c. ir,junction, an or;er waB 
fTtf-7red -.iii'cU -rgir.g saic; rule :;nd c^l^jci^sing tho retltion. 
The r'nion y roi^ecntaa thiB ai.real to rovcrse nuch braer. 

Th« findings of the Gh^nc<5nor, as r-rrbodied in the 
order syr-ealovj from, i^ubtnt/inti rdly an follo^va: 

: i.' f'i. 


inl^ btii 

it-'; tAt 

- 7 - 
That during the in >iUf;«t;lon, the re«ponaent Fed- 
eration had in foroe a ru3« rxoviding that the oroheatras of 
all firat-clu39 thflatren in tlse ao<rm town Jintriot of th« 
City of Chlo.iiiE'o iinotjlvi Vb cor..po«ed of not less thon eleven 
Bien, und tnrit the wcxebera of f.l.c Feaeration -.urere not {r.rn.i tted 
to play In any firat-cliiBe theatre, in the clown town ai;-triot 
in said city not u-^ing an orcheBtra of eleven or R.ore nen; 
th;*t cifcong the tneatrea to yhich fjaid rule applied •^un the 
Cort Ttioatre; that the Oort Thestre CoK;";-Any 1»* und *a9 a 
corporJition of whioh H. A, Fru?:ee f/fifn vloe-preniaent and a 
minority .-^tockholvter, anu U» J, HerriLan v.'af) secretriry iund 
li.rtnafrer, and srtid oowpany oontrolled timi operated the oaid 
Cort Theatre; that .hirinp; th#» of 1011 and prior to the 
opening of <^he theatrical oeacon the Fe ier&tlon proceeded to 
put in force tj<« said rule vtith r^fGrenoe to th« filnirriuin 
nUH.her of ;;,tjn th.:it iShovild ocfcpoae t-n orohofltra in first-classa 
theatres in the down town district in ^T-a-; city, and notified 
all auch thRatrea, inclxidlnit, thi? Cort Theatre, to thot effect; 
thcii at th-.t ti&e the Cort ThsAtre Cosipsny JiOci not yet eu- 
ployed an orchestra for the onfluing season; th.^t the FeCiera- 
tion, through a coB.itittee c.ncl its rreoident Jof-H'^ph F, ''.InJilor, 
also applied to rirA rcv^UfS-sted the ocb.,( .v^ny to «».] loy n-fivbera 
of the Fe ioration to furnif^h the orcheBtr-d cuRio at fluid thea- 
tre; that the Cort ThcnXre reru??cd to etrricy an orc:.o«i'tra o 
ejovfin tr.QD, but exr reased itfj ^iii ing.neRt.9 Vc eR^pioy ^jh orchee- 
tra cijnaifiting of mertberB cf the Fc.verat.ion if the Fed^rntion 
7/ould ooU'Tsnt to "i<»w fron. its po3J+:ion o-f Jfiarinding that 
such orohttotra ■should b« ccRiT'0?5ed o-^ net Icbr f.lijn eleven ry.en; 
th'-it the Feder'it.lon rofu?ied tc r^-ccde froir. itif? deit/indss re^far.jing 
the minirfiUffl nwi.ber of asn th^^it should coKpOi^e tai orohentra in 
the Cort Theatre -md other f iest-t r.-aa theatreR in Soid down 
to*n (Siatriot, t- nd thfta follo>ifed th*? troubieB and oontrover- 
9iea referred to in the p'^tition filed Onlol:;<;r 4, iQll, «nd 



.it V i 

* .,«-! 


•ro blj 


- 8 - 
ahown by ^he evidence offered and introduced in opsn coijrt 
on the hearing of ssxid petltioni thut th« acta done by the 
Feaffration and ssuld Winkler as ahown by the evidence, Aftre 
done -for ♦he ^^ole rurpo** of obtAinlng etuxl oyh\ei\t for tf.eabera 
of the Fe.ieration ;tru enforcing the '=».iici rule relating to the 
aininiUBi nuKbcr of reen should coEprifle an orcheatrii in 
firat-clhse thcf^trea in naici dovtn town district; thut the 
oontrovftrsy between tlie rfiero"dent« and the Illincio Tiieatre 
and Frazee A Ledwrer, aa shown by the evidence, f^rew out of 
and had relation only to thR Briid demand n:arte by tho Feie ra- 
tion rogardins the Kiiniicxw) number of «.«n that Bhculd ccaprise 
an orch«f»tra in ♦he Cort Theatre end otjier f irfit-oi:iS« theatres 
in R»id down town district; that netther the p* titioner Union, 
nor th6 orohe^itra lo.l by Charles Tuinn, raf erred to in the 
evidence, nor -.ny of its p^en^bem were involved in the eaid 
controvereiee between the rJcrt Theatre, Frazee ■% Lederer, and 
the Illinois^ Theatre on the one «id6, .';nd the re.Hif ondents on 
the other, nor was the erfiployrccnt or discharge of the said 
Cuinn'n orchipBtra, ->r of ir.ftiahera of the rf.'t, itioner org;ini?;a- 
tion, or ^ny of thee, by the Cert T-.^utre or ^ri-.^.ee * Leaerer 
or the Illinois Tiieutre, to r.ny extent tiie o-suse cr -^ubject- 
i:attRr of aaici oontrcveraiea; th-^t neither the rof^fOndonta 
cr either of th«n-, r.or ;»ny rer^on or |<irncn9 on trieir ht^iirilf, 
3ou£,ht cr re^jucsted th«" aiJvciirrge of the ^^eud Cuinn'^ orcii«9- 
tra, or of tny Ke^mber? of the jetitjonor Union, by aoing any 
o*" thR rictffl or making iny of the rerfff??f!nt;.itionfi or f.roolaca- 
tione forbidden by thfi eiAa ini\jnc tionr 1 rlecree F;rt<-^red hfu-ein; 
that the n or.trov-'rsy "^etvieen the rr.-ipondenta -iTiU thf; Cert 
Th«atre firisln;^ out of tiie daround for r; !(;inin;UEi of t-;lHven sen 
had M.lready begun, <inu .«;-.?? In frcgroan, it the fAihe thit the 
^aid Quinn'9 orchestra, coBipOBed of li.ewbfrrs of +he ratitlonor 
Union, took epiiloyaent ;*t tha Cort Trunitre, an .^fiovm by the 
evidence; th;.t ths aota done cimi f5t.:,.t8£ti8nta nnde by or on 


in ms «i '>s\-i ao 


vlf ««« 

,*i»l« •no t - ■■■^<-- till vA^ 

to tno^t^^ . . ^l^lite •d# 


ftC' • uijiiii ! !-^^ Ifi 


- 9 - 
behalf of th«^ respondients, or either of t,hom, after aaid 
Quinn'a orohe«^tr« had b«en efafloyeci hp. r.fore«*aAd, wRro dene 
and mad« not Kj?'lnnt the said Qulnn's* crcheatra, or :ny mem- 
bera thereof, or fmy other mftcVerM of the pe'^i^io^nfr Hnion, 
or for tho purpose of dt;/ riving ti.ev. or iiity of then, o^ ineir 
eKyloytti«nt, In violBtlon of awid in;junctiona3 decree, but were 
had and itade Hi^alnwt. the said Oort Tiieatre ami the aaid Frazee 
for the purpone of enforcing the demand of the Feieratiojn 
regarding the aininuB nuaber of iten th t «hoiJild oosipriae an 
orchestra, -vna for the r^rpos^e of obtftinlng employment for 
ffeabern of the Federntionj th^it neither the rfr''f>nhel of 
the said Culnn'e orchestra, nor the fact of the aTfiiiation 
of the mfii«Rb<»r8 thereof with the petitioner organization, nor 
the fact thrit they were not n.ettb©ra of thR Federation, entered 
into or becarce &. f;irt of the naid controverey, or h«d any 
beyring on the actions of the y..rttftB to aeid oontrovfrsy, or 
on ^he result arrived at by thr contending parties; thot the 
act* done and stateK.enta or representations vi.ude by or on be- 
half of the reapondentn, or ei + her of thf^m, as Bho^Tn by the 
evidence, were not forbidden by tho injunct ion;-il decree here- 
tofore entered and did not oonstitnte a violnticn of the eaid 
injunctional decree; th; t tht; a aia iniiinct ional decree Wi*8 
not intended to, unci dooa not, forbid or ree-train the re:^pon- 
dents or <;ny of ther»., froc ining any and ;~11 1 t^ful ;;?;'., ns to 
obt.^in enjployrcent for iifcrubera of the Fe:)er:tt icn in ooKf f.tition 
v?ith ne»b«ro of the rctitioner orr.Hnis:';jt j on, or forbid cr 
rcgtrein the jjjpjfhrra of the Feiierati en rroir, l?.'^fully specking 
and taking nuoh ejBrloycient, even th-'ngh thereby KemherGi of the 
Union >re prevented fron obt: ining euch eBifloyuent soui'iit 
by ti embers of the F«:.1er:.!tj on, or nre •iiscr.arged by their em- 
ployers hM of t2<e defendant Federation eKicloyed In 
their stead; that eaid aota cJone s^na f?t;;ter!fenta «ade by the 
rc«|-orjdenta, or either of then,, or c;n their behalf, as ahcwn 

:? TO Ii».8« 

^fr , ?^a' 

;> .:t':,, .>fnl 5r 

- 10 - 
by the evifler.oe herein, were not done or reficle Ksliolou'^ly or 
for th« furposo of hin-'oring or cb'^i+inctins the m«nbsra of the 
Union, or my of therc, ot of rrevontine the»; fron. obtaining 
or retaining employrcent aw Busioiana or otherwifle, nnd that 
neither of «<ald regpondentJi, nor nny r«f on or r^fons ^^n 
their behrdf, aouiyht to interfere with or ob«^tniot the peti- 
tioner or<r'ini7:»tion, or any roKber or siercbera th«recf, or pre- 
vent any moitber or ufimheta of the (etillcner ^nion from 
obtaining or r«t lining employpicnt, by threatening or suggest- 
ing the opposition of orgriniy-eci iabor uniona or their aeuiberfl 
in such a miinner as tendod or wf.e cislculated to oanRft any 
auoh ««p]f}oyere or ".ouia-be eir-nlovere, to fenr or hclisve that 
trouble i^ould be caueeci mioh ejr.rlov*»r« or wonld-be eniiloyers 
by the Ferieratlnn, itR officers or rrftir.berB, or byo*:h«r 
uniona affiliated! with thf* Fe.iftrotion of Labor or their 
aeinberB; that neither of nivid renpondenta, nor any p^-?r«on 
or r«raone on th«ir behalf, dUi, or attetarted to, interfere 
with, hlnier or obfltrnct ta« rtHtaberB of the petitioner Union, 
or any cf thetr., in obtaining or retaining eieployiKent as rusi- 
ciana, by repreeentine or cIulR,ing to ertiploy-^rw, or proa]-©c*iv{ 
eicployera th it rr-er-bflra of tho Union '^«re non-union (.c:n in 
«uch a rtanner o^ 'f^t^fi oailcul-^ted or wculd ouu^se f?uch et'>', loyern 
or j^rosree + ivc etrf lovers to fear ^ ne opposition of rtanrondente 
or iny or either of them or orgr-nizied labor cf cny cf i ta 
branches, or in.UviclualB, or rgrr*f"5<^rtatiw<if} or voluntary or 
Inoorporated a-i30clationsi t}i.'.t throu|?hout the disrutee -md 
contrcveraies hereinbefore referred to, .inc) the naifctiationa 
carried on between the reepondenta ;,iind the Cort Theetre 
Company, frazee A Ledorer nnri th*? niinois T;.eatre, neither 
of the roispondents, nor :.ny rernmn or ,;5cn?» on thKir beivr-jf, 
rerrewented that the fru^icli'.na ooR-pofsinp: the afad Cuinn'f* 
crcheetra, or .-iny other KORii^fira of tht^ petitioner T^nion, 

- n - 

Msere ncn-union p^en; th, t, neityjer of t,he res^pornienta intended 
to violate the aaid ir^unotJonal necrea by or tliroii,'';h the 
acta dor.e and ftt?iteisent« pui'ie by thpf;, or either of thens, or 
by .>:ny othftr » ftrson or poraone en their behalf, In ccT^nection 
^ith ths ffi;ittere and thingu re-^crred to In the 34. ia fPtition 
;;nci tho nnewer cf th** <i«id rftfipon l«nta thereto, and that 
th<? flcts ricr.e or nt-iteit-cntii wade by the Sttid reapondentft, 
or either of thea, or by any rc-rscn or !er«oriR on their bohalf, 
je aho«n by the evideuoe did not oc-natitute a viojrition of th9 
said injunction. 

Th« jTflcifle i;^3ue involved rcay ho readily coit.? re- 
hended ufon a oor.aift«ir««tion of the foregoing review of the 

It 1«5 praotiodlly ccnoedod by • th;it if 
the finding* cf ♦he; oliancellor art^ Rvpported by the evidence, 
the order ri1ooh'ir*^,inf; the ru.le to Rhow cfuipse and diatf'.iflj'.ir^i 
the rc^l^ion wdg not Impropftrly entered, hut «pff;21r;i-it in- 
siotB th'^t the finding of the oh-'mco] lor 3 rs not aurrorted 
by the evidence and in agajnat thft if.anifttfst weight cf tli© 

It i0 K Rftttled rv}e of eojiity yrr.ct.lce tfu;:t e oovrt 
of review p?ni not n«t rj.iiirie the ^irdings f fisct by h chnn- 
cellor "*'ho Raw the '.'■Itncft'^eH and h*?ard tbt»it tentjfy, unie^fl 
the error in such findin/^t? in ci«Rr and r^Jpable, Hi f ford 
y. Cutler . 248 111., :^4G, 

I" Qghier v. levy. n.3C 111., l*?*?, it in said: 

■So long an th« injuiiotion i» in force it i'S tho duty 
of atr«?llf;© to obeerve it and to condiict hie buninees striot- 
ly in Kcccrdnnce with the re<'Uirer(;ev;ta of Buld injunotion&l 
order, but the court granting the injunction having dete rirlned, 
upon a con>3lderati on of -'11 thfj evidence subKitteid, tlint 
f^rrellee h'id not viol?ited it, 'ife are unable to aay, froar. the 
record pref^tanted to ua, th;t such detcrni nation in clcrtrly 
and polrably contrary to the eviuenc©." 

•0 •: oS" 

It would «erve no useful purpoi^e to review the 
tefltlBiony of the Bever 1 »;lln«j;'>Ma, as It arpcfir* in th« 
record. It in irreconoil aay oonf Hoting. ^e Jiave /dven 
It the careful ocnai deration which it nerita, and ore unable 
to conclude that the findings of < lits Qhancellor are ol«yirly 
and palpably wrong. 

The order i^ ef firmed. 


346 • 18385. 

a oorj crjitlon, | 

\ I 

.A. 453 





fl^intlff in Frrojr, 

yp. jnr.Ticr\DUNCA}j T^itiiimx Tiir. oriNicB or the coitrt. 

The Wu«»l08t Leader fubliahing ComFftny obtalo«d a 
v«srdllot and Judgitent ir^ fttta|^hn-«r»t. in tn« «\ik of two hur.rirftd 
lollur* vigalnmt C^rollnaV^ita fcr i;« balanoe -i>;« on a contract. 
The oontraot »i^ned by Carolln* *hit«, plaintiff in «?rror, (»a« 
an agreettcnt by h«r to i^iV <i«fencl«nt in error four ttonthly 

V pay««nts» of 16^.50 beginning with Beowib^r 8, 1910, for h«r 
ijlvertitemrnt of thr«« Fftg«« in th« .¥\iilettl L#*naer, to oenaiat 
cf vni© front page aadi t*c in»i(ie r*»£«» tc be divitiea over the 
year. The &ttaclv«jent «.rtfii in aid of tue original auit, th« 
affidavit setting forth «»ici debt fcnci the non-r^aiaancc of 

\ plaintiff in error .^« ftrounda th^r«for. ^ii^intiff in error 
ent«r«d hut arjearanoe -sn;! in her affidavit of aef«n9«8 -.^Uxted 
that iittfer^ant in error hoi ^ailaci to publish her atlvertioe- 

' ir<«nts as si^f.reed, 'md that nhft nv;5.», thtjr^fore, entitled tfj a 

^' «et-off fcr fifty 'lollar», ih« ;ixe<nmt ohe hr^d f&icj on ^'ui.i 

,ontri5iOt, but ahe did not trsvftrae th*s affidavit or in .ny ^-iey 
leny thut 8he was i^ ncn-reuid*?nt of lilinois, ref«noynt in 
error d<srjied in an 8ffi.l'.4vit of KfjritB h«>!r cjl?ilK of «s«t-oJrf 

\ and isllft^ed thftt It htHd fully r«rforR.ed its rsrt of 'h*^ con- 
tract for rrinting. 

^l«ilntiff in error if:trcduaed no ^rvlricnoe on ths 
trls-il, and areu«s f"«a a r.rcumi fcr r*¥fer«»l o-f th# jvidf.:pent that 
the tsvivS^,noe was not auffioient to KiJike a caa© for cjefsmii^nt 

T fir'T 

- 3 - 
In «rror upon either tb« Httaoh».<»nt, Ismie or ufon th« merits 
of th« o««ii«« Tt»«r« »»{i« flo i«»«u« Tcad* en lh« question of th« 
non->r««i.l«noe of the plaintiff in error, and &» t.o the iitteoik- 
Bpent the 4«f«n*iant in error wan en*it,le<J to a juUgcrent by 
default, Tfc* evidenot .for tief«r.<b*nt in error, «v«n tr«=suting 
the rcatter to be nt i^^^tne, l«, however, flvrffiolent in trie 
abeeace of evitlnnoe to ii^e contrary <o irrove th.-it the plf^lntiff 
in error was a non-reoldent of Illlnole« Ch^rlee T, Frtmoh 
testified thtit she told hln before the contract wao sjisned 
thut ehe wae living in Itiily And tht^t "ae eoon »» tliif» ^eaaon 
le over, we sre foing beck to our horte in Italy", fie further 
teittlfled, in eubatance, he publiahiid in thu ^-'URical 
LeAvier mon* thsn three lull ja/^ee cf edverti a«B.8nte for [Iain- 
tiff in error aiatrlbuted ov«4r the y««ir in « cumber of ruhli- 
oationo of the p-aper aocording to the provialone of tiie con- 
trect, which was J^leo lntro«Jucedl in evidence, and Uxiit he 
furniehed her enctigh of the publioatione for her to atjf tlwt 
the contract wae fulfilled by ilef^ndant in error. The evi- 
dence ^urth«r showed th:>t Bhe »fKn an cfKra sjinger, and thsit 
i»he T*5i« in Chicago at the Con.preee Hotel ufter the cor.tri\Ct 
»a« eign«d during "the ftoHftone" of iSlO ^nd Iv.-ai, tiXid ttint 
on Januiiry J^>4, 191S, ahe ejiid to Htsrbert Cu(9t8.v«or.» a law 
clerk for defemUiRt in error's •'Attorney, Hn:[ -.".iiC toln h«r his 
buaineea ^un to see h^r in regard to the ol^siK in qn<53tion; 
*I have >7ritten Kr, Frrsnoh ufeout it; se r.olng a^j-.y novt, 
and my hueband hua wfrittttfi hin, ify hu»bnnci has junt v?ritteiJ 
hlB a letter th-^t I have given to the ju'iid,* Tlie B;sid Mum 
gave Gufflt&ve&R the letter xhiah ■•.'i» ait-ned by plaintiff in 
error *B husband, P«olo Longone, which Ifettvir, '?ic far i*!^ it 
r«3for8 to the r&attier in ■•luAt, rcuds hu ,fo'iio*«»: "H«gi-iriiing 
the contract of my -fife, Critoiina ^hite, v^ith your paper, it 
n^is diepleaeed, u» ^l have oean obliged to post- 


:,»'t*;:Ji. If. 

pone the faywwnt of tfaia acntract,*****S 

*Ky ::te9tre would b« to r-^y o«« half of ^he »^uir ciue, |100 
on April 3C'th :'rfJ the ireirujlning ^100,00 on ?lov» rtber 30th upon 
our ffsturn. If thl» »««*» your anroval, v.lil you kinUy 
notify iae, rtAd oblige* 

It >ca« al»o in <»via«nc« tnat nhe pjild fifty Jollirfi 
on the contract long aft«r the ru^Hofttiona were concluded, 
and that on ^ebruory 1, l^Jl.^, five taye after th« attjichwsnt 
writ was i-^aued, Bhe Btginwd a pc^fer of attorney to her attor- 
ney, whioh ln*tru»«nt r«oite« th&t "Carolina White of the 
City of Bow ton. County of Suffolk, in th« ??tist« of MiisaachUR- 
ett9," emirowririi Cairolo Qigliottl to aisn bonds in her naKe. 
Th« foref^oing evicienoe «oa HRir-le proof that plaintiff in 
srror w^a fi no»-reelu«nt of Iliinoift on tn« date of th<5 atta3h» 
v^ni ^rit, US averred in said affidavit, and that cifefendant is 
error w^a entitled to a verdict and ^xii^msnt in fittaohcent and 
on ^hfi R.erita of ♦he csro, too, Rh« n-in not s^hoi'.n to hnve 
any re(«iderK5e in Illinol* st any tiae v;ithin the R-eeming of 
th9 uttaobRient act, 

T'lviintiff in error rIso inP5i'it» th'>t tha court srred 
iu refusing to instruct tha jury as tc the; rM-ifuilne. of tue. terss, 
ncB-resldent, within th«^ f^eaning of the v-iiirAchirent act, -^nd 
sl8o orred in allo'/^ing net h\i^bnnti*n letter in eviaence ever 
her objection that she ,Ud not Ti;rSte it, Th^sje objections 
are untenable and without e.orit. It ia true ^iv^t re-^idenoe 
ia i..;rg<sly li reatter of intent u| on t^.« p.-.rt of tho on*** ».hoFJ«! 
reairlencft i« in t^nfi^tion, brit tv,iiTc i?i no f?vid®nC0 in Iho re- 
cord aa to ■ |;,5:iint,tff in error's intentions xhtq lit ..ny 
time ."^hile in Ohic;.;,f7.o ur to making a r«isi-.i«no8 t*?ii».j,orary or 
other-vlfltt, nor as to ho* long or for «hat iiirfO*^« ©he *&© there, 
and, therefort^, it nt-m not r.roj-er to have the jury conj-'ia^r 
that ^iueation. Had fJalntiff in error deaired to aho* that 

. 4 • 

h«r re»ldcno« »»« In Tilinoia tmv la«ue en th« affidavit should 
havis be«rj ro w^de by a traver»e, an4 th«i fact* nonoernlng her 
re©ld»no9 her«, If -^ny, put In evir^eno©. As to the letter 
of nor husband, the eviJono« clearly fthowa th?*t ah* adopted It 
as her letter, and it w«b jrcferly adiaitted. 

There was no ewisionoe temiing to prove the clalR of 
oet-off, and, tuer«forQ, plaintiff In error -^ar, fintitle<4 to 
no Inr-.tructlone rep^>rdlng the ««ire. Tinder the eviaonoe 
defendant In error whb entitled to a clirftoted verdict in ite 
favor. There i« no revernible error in the rencrd and the 
judRment i^ £ffirit>ed. 



-2/ i^o7 

:^r,r, - l'^320 

Plaintiff in Errcr, 


DefandKnt In KrroT , 



) tsmon TO THS supi^ior r:ouRT 

) I 





0*en i»^rphy auad out thla writ, of error to rwvor»a a 
judffinent af^ain&t l^ia In favor of ctaftsnclant in »rrc>r in & suit 
for p«rBonol injuri^e by him euetained. At ths close vi his 
«rl<'encc thff c^urt difected./a verdict of not puilty ar-d tntared 
.iufifJTnffnt;<-rdlnrly, X--*'' 

The firet count of the dsclRratinn chuxgf^s, in £ub- 
etanc^, thrit h« •«»uu ■a'jiployed "by rJ^f's^'lunt in ?r?-or to r«'^vove 
slnrn nan-T'! o 'rors a c^rtj^ir; fra^ris'vnrk filrty fast nirh; '.ViVi'.. the 
w«ip>!t 0^ tha pan<^le fieoessarHy in saIu ^s,•*■^r*r r'jatr-id a^^ tiia*;* 
on a tl^Tiher 2 x ^. inchfls at t.Vi«* tot' o** s-iii fra^na; thut, in r«- 
woTvnp Sf^lci panels h'? »as rsaijifeJl to ctand on ano^h.^'" ;" x 4 at 
th« reair of eaid framR .vcri; t;.nd n:)ar its tOi-i *'hich Traft siada for a 
foot r«at 5;!hHe fiucK *'Oric ivue be1n,p pfrf or'".^!^; that -i«fend&nt In 
error neglipcntly porr^itlt^d KnJd /'> >; 4 f J5:ber» tr "b* and remain 
in a dfinper'jus and unpof'^ eofiditicn, cldj rotten, worn out and 
cracked and inavff ifiientl r n'^ll'sd to thnir %ttac'jjrM?f'tis, ;.ni. tVifAt 
th« uppor tiiab&r afcreaiiid hud a la^Tgn .':;r.nt ^xter.iUnc t>-,i ouj^h it 
thKit, TfSfik^ntfd it, all of '-hioh tha def onctun'; In ei-rr^r kntw or 
mlfht httv* Icnosn Vy a.„e cure; und of ^hich plaintiff am *n*..or had 
not knowl*d(*e or t^qual '?i«ans of kno^lt^dp.a thereof -ath (i«fand«ir»ti 
that "h.*/ r'^ason of ecid R«i'lir«nc« und .vhils plaintiff in error 
waa Btandinr on Raid foot hofird and lowering a panel of said 

^1T.« fc 

eiflrn board to the ground with a rop« and hoolt aa ha ^as required 
tc do, aii'1 while ueing dua oars, aaid fnot "board pullsd looBe 
frrrr; Itu ait 1 achwentB *nd thr«w hlw afttxinni and hrak« caid upper 
tir.'h«r and prcoipitat«d him thirty f«Bt to the ground ixnd eever«ly 
injurad and da'na^ed h;m in th" oum of flftaen thou»an(3 dcxiai-o, 
Thfl 990ond and third counts are similar to bhI?? first count, the 
Bscond charfflnfj; that nlaintiff in orror'n injury "vaB cav?fi«d hy th« 
said defectfi in the for-t board, ?rhll« th? third ccunt charr^ed 
that it wae cavs«d by ths aaltj <l«f«ct8 of the uprjar ;? x 't iiasb«r, 
Th*? OYidence is, in subKtance, th's.l ih^'. e-irn ho-wda in 
queation «er« orected on the «»a8t, si ^« of Blu« TelAnd ave^^iva Jviet 
south of ite croaainiif at Jlixteanth otrtjot; th'it swtd frtsc^i^ vfork 
conelEttd oi* tJ^o pin« ponta -^i x 6 inoh-is -rtnrt about uhirt;/ fast 
hijrh put in th« frcund and braosd hy 2 x 6 inch tiribcsrc nail'jd to 
thoir topa inaA exten'inr aaist and hfiVind thaw ubout rsixtean fsi«?t 
and thpre n«.ilad tc lov. rcr.ts planted in the irr';und; th'At thare 
'iiV^ si? p^xaTlel ?: Tc c tiw>u?rB about l"nuj feet «.|>art nuileci to 
this front cr ?-<sst ti'J'^ of thf s^An upright poets to ^.hir;'-; the 
p&r:(!la rere nuil«d, fin's of ^vhich rrot-R tifshfsro was nt the t<:>ija of 
the .uprirhtr.; t^at th« fr-airi <' x 4 foot r<sfit •^•atv nall-^d t'> tbts 
t:&c5c or satt tide of lh« upriphtsj, Oduraiiol '^ith and about thre« 
feet brJlo*- th« ttp crotti bfr; that ther« -.were l,g/o 6i«?-n bcarde on 
said fra'ne, an upn'sr and a lowtr, n'l^^cftd aboui five inchi-R apart, 
the Ic/vver on* iTriiif t«c or thrs-? f-set abo^a the ground, and -iach 
3lgn bo.:ircl oonalst^d of B-?5T>jn p-inola, ^ac'- of ?'>"inh waa 
>i,bout thra-) to f^ur fart in v,i;Jt>^ *inA t-;alr-'» to fourteen f»«t 
in lengtiij thtt'. th-^ panels ifsra -i-vdy of piriti i*ig..'riair nutl«?d 
to thre": cl*5&'.s 1 X 4 ixichaa, '.h^-; hot~.f:u ol'jafc bsins^ ao pl^ioed 
&£ to r«tit en th-r; top of the If^ost cryisr; b-i,r en -hio^- il v-'ae 
tc bf pl.cofj, but the top claat re:ufeined B3v,rral inch«e above the 
top crofiB bar; that ths panele .vero placed eido by side and nulled 


to thre« crotiS 'bfii-e ith frora nina to t."«lve nails driven in the 
fact of each nansl and ;>f such Itingth as to f^o throu<r!: t>^fi panalB 
and thG crce£ bt-rs a-nd protrude en the rear about one-fourth of 
an inch, bo that Ahen the paaal^ are to bo rejroved th^ nii-. Is 
cGuld be driven fcr«ArJ. and dra.'..n ^ith a ^Ia« hcansner; that :vh«n 
tb« pEm@le w«re thus put up th«re vac a frame »nrk put xround 
«ac^i eipn ^-o^-u'd s^t tc f. , Mdcfj &nc bcttcm crnBi&tir.j: of tiiT:"b«r» 
2x2 inchcB htxa n<^.id to the eip^. hc^/rdE in like jn^inrer *;g the 
pfxpelB 'fi)Tr. to th3 cross h&ra, reiving saoh £if:n ho&rd i>*! f^r-,-n«»ar- 
anos of >5eing framed lif^': a picture", that the for-,t r«st ^ae not 
nallflf? to the Bipn boarde, its only us« being fcr a foot r«&t 
whftn th« panclp -A-ere bRinf placed cr rer.r^vetl, 

7h? *?videnc3 iA.rther dlaclnDed that plaintiff in error 
•*a?. tT'intj-ssven vsiu-o old --md a Eif:"'; haiigsr by ccrvipnt ion, ?r.nd 
h^d v-orkod &t th-tt vr^tde uV>cut four ys'jaj-o, the ^aat aaven cr sight 
Konthff of sfhich he was in ohargci of tho -^orlc in the fl^^ld. Janu- 
ary !'>, 19'*B, he ".as dirsct'.'d bv th-s forctn?ni of defendant In ?;rrcr 
to ro to the Sign boarrls in qt;<2stioii aarl to rerlJica the -^rcct pan- 
el e thereon -vith nsw iron pavielE, u.nd to flr.'o^iine the breeder, panele 
th^re aiic' if vrorth caving: to uav*? V-K^r., anc if not t':; push th'sai 
off to one side. He took i^lth hir. tv»f> h'slp^^rs, «'lllla'-i "^v'rhin- 
jion and ^'illiam Thiffault, snd hj :!ireotien of his for-'J-nan he 
tok -A^lth him a «afircn and tain?, nm sxt-'r.sion ladder, t-ors-^ rroBS 
bars, hawrrjore, nails, a rnn^' and hook, eora-- P :c 4 tlrubnrc and 
thvi. <"'•■« T»an?lB, ""n arriving? at th^J r;ig;i '.••oar'ds y-lrtintiff in 
«!-j"f>r fl l'!h»d up thy bacV of tfn t'rxn-t '.rcjrk on'o ths foot board 
about thr«« f«^t bolr.3? th« top .' j: 4, ^nd 'r. Thlffn.^lt ftot 
upon tho l!::.ddisr on the front of zht*. aipn boards abov.t th-^ lo^«r 
find of th« uppftr eirri brnrd, •5'"ich -fas th^ uBual vmy tb>?;/ b-Tgan 
the work. Thraj first r«roTed ths fra"^© work by driving the nstils 

taia »' 

forward and drawing th«s5 with humniRrts, nni th'in plaintiff In srror 
drov« fcrwajrd and dre* all ihi n?.ils stcq:! <»ns in thft top arose 
bar, ffhilc Thif fault drcTe forward an'1 draw all the- nails 'jxcapt 
two in thi r.i'idle urii loner crosr "bars of the t-^p sirrn t".'««.r>1. 
Plaintiff in error then f&R^ftned the hock on hlft rop'? l>?hind tbe 
tnp clfit of i.h3 fire*, pans.l, .tn"- t^»n Thiffault taiJ. to hrn, 
"All right, Ov-jn?" «-n'. plaintiff in '^rror ans?rerad "y-e", and 
pull«d tha laat nsiil in th-^ top rr'^ee "hnr, ^hile Thiffault pulled 
tVis r^nair.inr two ny^ils, one each in th-- other tv»c erccr ^ara, and 

f, v<nrchy let <»Q7rr the firet pan-l "b y lift In.'- it off the loweet 
cro9s har f.rd lettinr it :"?? "n by th? ro^^* e*lidinr ever tha top 
cr'^nr har. Thf firat parel heinf rer'jr-ved they procs-sded tr re- 
rcff in the sranc v&y the n-cxt one, r*iif*> inp aho'ut 12S pounde, and 
when ito .icipat car'.e en tn th'i tcp rmar bs^.r the cron& "bar suddan- 
ly hrrika at u knot ♦.hirsin about th-? p-int -sheT-i r,ha oantMi* of 
th? aecond ya.T»Jl --as n=i51^i to the crcen har, and plain.l'^r' in 
arror sFas thro-^'n fors'ivda ^nd dn^fn on to \h*j pavarnant Jind r-^ry 
S'jT^r.'jly and pe^rsiana^.tly in.jurad. Th?^ nrots bar and the frasne 
fTsnarally .^irs 3opn'' and, 'rit'.out d«f»ct5, escar t ih.-j knGt sn the 
croEs bar -.^rhich ext'?nc'ed ivcrcrn the .vcj-t. face of th* "inber, and 
y-ae about thrse inc''<CB lent', leavinr only about on'.:; inch of 
j;r)und, aerviceabls tir.b'sr at x^hat point . nere it split a-nd broks, 
and th*r entire knot wan concealed by tV.ia pa-nel n&ilf;d against it, 
&& tht; knct '-^id not gho.^ in eit>fr edf.! of th:: tlrf.ber. Th« acci- 
d«nt if. thur d«Bcr1,b'iid by plaini i-*^-^ in *-r or: "I roi the hook in 
ths ascend pansl nr»-^ Jiftsr T f^rt the }iork in -he claat in this 

'sr'ic 'la.r panitl that I -^ap r'^'in?' to T^t do'm, ?-:dlly Thif fault 
iull*d th« nail at th'i bottom snd Etsp'^ad to one lUde for rris to 
leave the section fo ^ic-^m, un^laretand, and v«'-.en I lifted It 
a little, the first thing I kne/-? th« fcot > old bsgins to 8?;ing . 

ofia *i!»na L 2' 

I lifted it a llttlo, l^ lifts of thy ^ottcrr. P x -i, the cleat, 
arX «11 of a cii-l(?en it lata ^9 gc Jown and I fell off ^ith th« 
sifrn. ?bi ro}^^' *'ti« th^ir r<J6uinr on tho 2 :t 4 that 'hrnic'^. In 
lettinjit th9 pHn«l dor. I *^utj Ifaninr; at^'ii.nEl Vne ? x 4 t'oat 
hroki?. TVg ? X 4 cawo to ehovt. "oy chaat or "s./ stonHCh,* "Co 
n.>T<?r r^L-roved or put i'ancJla on '.ha;-. fraKO "b'^for"' that Any HJii 
icnaw flolhln^ of th« nree^nca of t\\-i knot h^T'JV^ h^i a-a& injured. 
They tock (? tfc;' i'i-»nsla th» d^v.^' cT t^tj injur/ Jiu-t Ir. t>? usuftl 
and onl/ .^ay t'r*;:' ^sre tiik-an d&rn. It viisi st rart cf hj^ rrefular 
duty to look ttis frwr-.^ «<3rk ov«r to u-s^ ^vhitt c .ndilif'.i it a-as in 
as to repair, and he vould repair it if it n?-d3d it artJ ha had 
the proper "^ateri&ls on ihe ««»pc-n to rapair it. If h'* h-^d no 
prcpiT wa^t^ria.1 rith *hio''; to rs&air it, hs * r&::":rt its 
ccniltiori to {>*■ coripany, "I&jfitiff in ^jrrcr, sf "^sll -ig all the 
ether witnssssf, t«stifi«d t»:ul all the tii'bsrs lociced 'black and 
^fira not palntad, but that all of fhzrr. -fera Bcynd ^nd ee*'*>«d to 
■fca securely nrila3. T^•:':/ fslt solid cnier tha w.i'n'g faat ' 
th-?y csr^fvlly 'ix%r^in^id ani 'iS'*nt f^vjr all of ths:n bsfcre th^ in- 
jury '"ith % Tie's to l-itisG^ any ciefacta -jr urusaf-j -^onil S:i'>rtrj *nd 
d^ti^cl'?;} none, T;^oav;-3 th« knot, th-;? onl/ isf'irXf foas hlliea "by 
the psin^l nall^.i to it. Th^ foot r^at rio?sd cli.rhtly froT: th« 
uprip-hts "by the nr-tle ali.'^htlj ^riving 'A.vay juet as th-'i second 
panel '^as 1st do^*n to ^ht ?»rf>uno. . Th*?r» wa? ncthinp -rong 
3»if-. the top crooa h%r that thsy c-^il i cliscnT-sr "b'^f:.'"? tha in- 

Thci «1?faci or Vnot a'.'roai- vhe f.fojit ^jr •■■?eat f .aa of 
th« T.cp or<.ss h-iT o-^ '.h^'i frsTfi* votk on -;hich tha rsa^ .•:i:v:;le 
were tr. h« -r.-i-icad hy ih*». pl^iintirf ia error •fSi.n r* prozi'n-Lt^* cause 
cf the injury in qU'Sstion, hs apo^aro fr^'tn thrj -avic'isnce. To say 
the l»ast, it could not h« n^-ld fte a jnattsr of la-s- tha.1 It ^^ae 
not a proxirr.ite cause thereof . "ht^re two cauGsa op-rate tof^ather 

ifr;r-nf K 

to prodiico or cat:se an injury, ^rsd n«sJ*her o.Tr.n« vould hav-J oaueed 
puch injury, 'both may bw pTox)^.r\y fiallod proxlwe-t« caasec of the 
injury, if no other ird«pendrnt int^rTer^lnff cn-upe T&y Y>tt tu.i^ to 
>>•» fYf> •pTOxim&te raufO th«!renf. TV» f .ct, 1^t>^ef<■ir" , tht^ the 
frivinr away- of thn fool, held "if.y al»c hnm "baon a cortt.rl'bKtinp 
cause of ♦*i'? Injury, •^oul'i r<?t "h^ a f?viff 1r1 '-nt r'?a^on for eaying 
Ihfi d*5fect In th'* ♦nr r-ro^p "hai" "an n^-t a nrnyir^ft® causft t>tr«of, 
Villafr? cf r^^rtqrville t. <^ook, 1?9 TH., 3^^?; ^Ipin, ». ■^' r> T. 
ro, V. yjlron. ?17 III., 4?; Pleyel. ro-yfT S- f^t>, v. Trck^. ri6 
Til., -'-9. 

Th<s re»l queetlon in thl? cie* rmt»t necssearilv "bs 
ptiff of frict, th&t ip, whethfjr or no': th'' Plaintiff in ^rror vaa 
puilty of eontribr.tory n^gl.l.ct;nc«t. Th3 .1«fec^. in t;'rie tor cvons bar 
caitBttd l?y thf» precencs of "i. larfc* f'oncsnlsd knot -as on*? o*' or- 
ifrlntii conatr'act jon, and not cav5»<t >>y d*^cay, or by gv;>)g!sqwent 
wear or o-ivinp a*ay of the "J.&r by reanon of ^JiyfrunK that, haa 
Vappened to it after the fran-'e ^-crk ^--af mtt 'Jt , nit^v-ur^ th« 
fT'".'«': >-'as aViout r.i> .y-Sttra old. It •••as no bvch drrfscl as pla'r.tlff 
ir! -^rror vas reauir^d or expfctwd to &ntlcjp*.^t;?, unO. fhs f^vx'iane* 
terde stronrly t{ nr^-'V* IVat, \,y tVa sx^rcls* O'^ ordinr-ry ^^ar^ h@ 
•*-r;v'lt; not an-1 that in f^ot hs dif! noi fini t^.^i lif'sfS'^t, H»c%vig« it 
•»tt8 cr.vered up ."ith th* oiinTi^l n-i'leri ovsr It. It it* the 'Uity of 
the master or sr-ployer to fi.irniuh to "h.if? ■?r'pl07'«! a r«!y.iir.»i.'Jbly eaf'S 
pl'^ce in '«'hich tc v,oi-lc, &nd .f':ai?'-»nal;l7 safe ap',:>li?.jnc-;}G -^^ith i»'!ich 
to -Ycrk, ^mc^ h^ cunnct reli^iVe \Lv?^elf of t.v-.^*; dsity "by f'^l^f^ting 

it tc another. £i_fr:._A^.>w_J.'-J^2^_IjL...^^212.i^^j "^70 111., 520; 
Donk Tr oa. Coal Co, T, X^U. '■•'•= ni., ??'< . 

< After & res.enniibly eaf^i rl^joft r>r n/ppliar^cft Ir furnished 

■by thfi wt-Gt-flr he s>^y ir^.pctiS tK.'s ^tuty of iM*«p action fr>r subr-^jQusnt 
tiefecte t^ decay or 'by feej».r ur ty other otxu&sB, if the iut/ is 
si-pls and plain nnd the servant if cl^'arly cc-rrp^tant to pwrfcrm 



HOIS ii.v^: 

thr >a'afl, and if suoh a dut./ ie accdpted Vy the nerrant, the tn.ia- 
ter iK rslSe^ad frosu any furthei duty of lAsp '^cti-n for ?ucr Aq- 
fccts. ?o th? •n^st'sr .'-a;; erplc-y a c:cipit.ent e-srvant to derolish 
or to s-iaka a h«H jcno*n -iJAngoroua plrca or appliance r-^xfa .^nl In 
r'ch caee hs c-in n?>t »>s held ii'thle, t)2ca.iE!^ cuo^ pl«jC« ox apibli- 
arcv* iB flang^r.-us to EU"^ ^>ploya. ''. A A. P. R . ^ o^.^ y. '-rjjro- 
ni '^r . 119 111., ^l i ri'.rk v . TJaton . ^A 111. Apr., :78i '^.l<>.tt on 

Th8 «(Tii4i'ce in '\l£ e::se te'ids to rhc^* that the 
dpffot Ir. th* fret. y-iXd tv&t f;i.u>.scl tV:© nhtilf^ tf> RlitrVtly pull 
cut p&e Rlif^- decay in tha «r.,i t,f t>»r-.!. tlrrl.«r. It being 
rl-^.inlif^' lr» "jrr'/r'fv r:- ty tc ins-p^-ct the fva'^.e >ir:5 .ieteet eny 
cangf^rs frrsu dscaj, or Irlsi'- tifif ^fter *>?• fra^^e sae ccnetrs, ct^d, 
and tc rspair or rppprt cuch defectc, thf. :Jff<*ct in tVi^ fcct'r.cld, 
if caiTSd b y d^c&y, >'&£ k iefert f •: r *-Mch he culr: net rscover. 
Th:»t if tc E&y, if tl^f d?f5c' in the feet I'eet T-eit th? fscl*' proxi- 
Eule Ci'iute of t^,'a Injur,,, he. coull not r;;caver. yeir-er cor.ll h« 
recover if he -sae fruilty of contributory n^^lig «?'^ce, cit^'-ar In 
fuillnsr to oheei^it th^ defect in t^;^' to? croEi:. b'tr, or in falling 
to ots'irra and rapalr tbs 'jsfect in the foot rest, if thf! jury 
should find thai the defect in tV.a f&ot s«,'&t :&:; not a ■'>.te 
ra>:F.? cf the- in^ixiry, h';t tv.*wt the kr^ot in the cross "bfU- v?af>> tho 
scl« proxlffista rauee e'f ths injury, th'.r. his n'igl i,^':'nt faMtre, 
if v"v'^ f? discover tVs d»f<t;ct In f*-,-"- foo', rail ■■■•■'^uli not har his 
rec.v^ry, .vr1 he -'oul'- ha ^Tstitled in r.sch i- •• :i. -y-T-Jiot, 
unl'.2SJ- h-o •'^fiB "''lilty of ^■^n'tri^ut'rcy I'Sjli.j'i'ic-:; in failin-^ to 
ohiisrv*; ths dof^r;* in tho top crocc "bar. To h-ii- his- ri?-:Tcry on 
account ')■■" hiii own ^-s^li'.'enc^i, hxrr-:\.j, it mvu'.. a ■•'■'oar froT: th-; 
cvid^'-ioe that hif- aof 3 Urftno:* or, n'r i"h:;tv«d t- hin inj'-'r-, t. •? . , 
be on'-! of the proxiiuat'S caucftr, of hla injury. All those qui^e- 
tiona J.'cr9 questions of fact that ohoulri h;4ve \>ssu sufemittad tc» 

r*t:t"% '^ 



the jury. 

?^e think thir* sa« eufficient eTl'3enc« in the record 
tc CO tc the Jury on the qufistion of *hetvor or not the frama 
wcrk hslonRfid to, or ae con8truct<ftd "by plaintiff in «rror» or at 
itfc. inetance. It 'llrscted the old panfle tc b« removed and r«- '^^„^ 
placsa »ith n«w ones furnished by it. i»laintiff in error tsa- 
•i:isd that his hoea *ais th'J amn wbo had the 's-ork "hafor©, and 
that h« C'jrtainly did know all Ab'^ut th^ elfins, "because h^? vraa 
around sh^im all, Thle atat«*rflent was URchallenired m jmy »■•%;/, ^md 
milo iTifirs nronf, if ^vailabla, eshould hav? b«en vmkd*i of the 
o-^i^rehip or construction of th« frot"",?, still sf: think fhn oo-urt 
errv^d in not eubBiittin,'? it tt thy ,iury. If t.^-e def'?nf^*jnf: in '^rror 
" nr '/ructed the frant: in queetinn or had it done, it ^aR nv-arfs- 

.i- .'ith notice of tut knot or defect in th*? top cross bt«T ao 
i !. s,£ pluiRlx ViTible vhon the p^nel w&i; ri;r<VRd fror^ it, ai'.d 
vtas necefiearily rlairly fisible 1'- the p^rty cr prir-f^"!; t>.«t 

-r f-et titi,bfr ir: putting up ths frs.Te vcrk, 

Ths judPinffrt ifc r«verf*d snd the ^axifs ie rsr^e'^ded. 

, srT'S.t'r; 

b vXrr if. tiik? f»f 

''• e ym 

, 184I.A.472 

of the K»st;a.t« of M.SCifAHFP'I?, ) 

deceased, )/ APPFAI- JT.OJ^ 




Judgment waa ri^nd«r«d against ?«l«n nestsrhonn, 

•xftoutrlx of the last ,*flll and testsioiisnt of *^a.t«rnu« ??cha®fer, 

d30«as9d, and in fa.rfir of &Pi;>«ll«i0s In tMa cult for money 

had *ndv r«e«iTed t*^ tb«m while off lc«rs ef 'Orain&g« ^"^iatriet 

I'd of tihe T^im^.'bf ^©w Trl«r, Cdok Co^/nty, Illinois, This 

ease, &nd 't-w^""6tii:j«r8 of lUcft charaoter, w^r'a soli dated 

for hearing in thia caurt s-lth case >;«^ 16370, E^chodan v ^t 

Sch&®f«r« gt i4»L t*«'3 in -slsich lit-.-t^jr casa the? opinion 'iva,Q 

iihits dikif rilfjd. Far th^ reasons s^3t fjrth in th&t opinion 

tht Judginent in thi^ ie x-^ereread i/.nd ths; ea'aS'S r»m?i.n 

332 - 16372, 

Api>«ll«int, ) 
▼»• I 

Api-elleea, ) 






JTudgmani WAS render^ in this c<i8« in fervor of 
Ai>i>«lle«» fegainet vycll*^*/ rigidlus 'oy«r, in a suit for 
saon«y had <md recfiiy«d by ih«a ta hio u««. 

This e&VB« «ind >wd others >*«ra eousolidated for 
hearing in this ed^uc1|i'---^lt'h e&ati ?Jo, 16370, Sehodfen v.!?c;^fet3fer, 
^t &.1 , in whioh l««tt«r oa»« the opinion ??i'S U^lg day filed. 

For tssa reasons in fch&t ca6« >s.fc-B^ic:ned. thi« jud^ttasnt 
is roT'srgud fend thfs rsmanded. 

Ti-^nrnFEf) ANI> nT^^^A^-DFB. 

, jttJ» 

a.rc'h Term, 1912/ Eo, 

333 - 1^373, 





I'- / 

? Ann* '^uerter f4'i)«&l5> from thle JudtTjRent In a «uit 
T»y her for money had 6^A rsceived "by &pp«lle«8 to h«r ;;««, 
The Judgment 1« r^r^rsed fend th« Citus« r^?re.nded in aeoordixnc* 
with whfct 4» 8&^ In tne opinion o-f' this court in caeo 
Sro,lS370, ?chod«n Y.S^i&efar et ftl. 'ilad titia d&y, vlth 
wliich Cft»« this one And two othare wsra con«oXidi«.t«d far 
boiiring in this caurt* 

RKV1?RSKJ) AHj3 ym'kVJD^, 

387 - 18433. Vj^l4^ '—■' ' 



1 J / 

'sriiLi^jf y.UAf^mi ftt'ai., 1 ■■ COCK cnrery. 



Trunk U, KipKey, tru'»tee in bKni;rnr%Gy of )tii« eatat© 
of ^iHis* E«.;nu«3, filtrtl» hl\l in erulty in tiie Bujferior 
Court agsirsst *»aici ?lJlla» Er-antj*! and ft',nRi« Easnuel, ni^ 
wife, to net asivjie an ?sllft^«<l frnndwlent acnveyance by *ne 
1ef«ni1ant, ^iniajt. FK-tnuel, to the lefenJ^nt, rnnnle Knsmiftl, 
cf OBrts-:tn d«9crl^«d resl a??t:3«:e. tr>e bill rrrivs *hA% « 
real ftjstate tec acl^ui^ed tc t>6 tne prof-erty of aal^ Finiajs 
Ksranucl rind rot thn rroperty of srd^l F^nnl* I"s:sr««1, -*rid 
that siaid Dannie fsimifil be ofylnrftii to convey ankci rfiel 
a?it(&te tc the tTCR,il5iin?.nt, a«s trustes, :*na that in aa^^e of 
hor failure no to :io, a Rnator In ahfinoery or soft© othnr 
prof:«r pj^rsoB be 5*rroiRted &nd .Hrnct^J to r^ak?; finite? con- 
^gyi«nce for end i$i behaK cf Ji.-tSd rff-fe-nauRta, --jnd for f'eru-it&l 
relief, ^?!.6n the L«:-->F.lnF th<? o;i::no?*13.or *nter«vi u deorfte» 
in eubstantl^a conformity vit^i thft rrsyer of the bill, and 
thereafter the s?v^.id d«f*;?vi'jnts rrc^ecuted their -v^j^siii to 
t}ii»» ccurt. Sever.-*] ssc?;thei fclio-*ir,|:, ^-ne fiAiae of I/.k reeord 
in thl« ccort, ar.x^lies filea his ^1s.-|j1r jtction tc tr .n«f»ir 
salrl ftrreal to the Surreite Court mor\ ths gronnd tii^t ?i 
freehold ^'^*» .llrectiy involved. 

^o >T?'i^:e?3t m%i^ «.1vanc«-ri, or ?'^athority oiteU, by 
counsel In *?u?rcrt cf i^:'l-.1 action, but ccun-^fil n.-, ively lit- 
fO«o4 upon tri« acurt tne entire ihcr of cc- 5?i..«ring and 
■ exaKining t&«i m;srtticn Invel^eU, T;..-..ifir :nich cirovjrsti.r.a^^s 


:0.-I .i<. A>. *Lit 

hP.d In vil«w of the h«»lsted ^-t.-.te of iti* ;ioo>«t the corrt 
d«8Red it Inftxrodlsnt tc ilevrte t)-e titre nec«n«tiry to original 
reai»ar9fi upcn tho r re«^ritfttion o^ *hff amotion, unci t-he action 
viua, ♦berflfor*^, taken ^itu the,- c5u«e. 

The ce«ft havinp b^cn rwached for oon«ideratlori, we 
find upon lnv»*Bt ii?at. Ion *hst the r'*'^cls« qu-swtion vi'i« ir.voiv#d 

?tnd det^ntlred in n^jty v. Kohn. t?30 111., 436, ^hRr*> It is 
held t.hiit 8 ryoceo'li pj by a tr>;nt«© Ir: bftnkrwftoy to net 
u«iue ft iecii froii. iho ^snltrurt +,0 a *i,ird f «r«on ir.voJvei» » 
frfi«holii, FviTthftr t;Oi<:i«ni if? unneces^sary . Tui^ ocurt 
beln?, «»it,hout JvTl«dicrt;i,vn io coriftiai?r nnri dfttf^rwine ^fi« 
c.i^e *Yif ^9»<» iff oruftred transfarrsd to th« J^ur rottc Court. 



^,--t «^. 

-i^.- : J' -H 'C^',, -t:;^' 

■;^ ^...'SC-- 


316 - 18558 

JO^rrr p. VATJ,2RS, ,Tr., 


ap-^^IXt. -pro?* eupsriob ncnjHT 0? 




Appellant liiljbwd 416 compla't!ia?il filsd his bill of 
complaint in vho Dtfpcrior nourt, all«jging that hs an! defendant 
Ms.llera, appi;lle?i, vare ccpJirtrjavM from ^*ar(;h, 1vj09, t- I'ay 
|>, 1911 1 on *'hicL day the cov&j-trierfe>.ip diooolved by ths liot 
and declaration of cicf ftnu&iit . Tht "oiil prated foi an accfunt- 
inr, ths api/oiritnesit cf u receriver --iriu i*ii injuricticn. The answer 
d(:ni5(2 t^at the cr.p6trt?:Sjc fehip hs-d l=£5»ji a.i?.f%clved . The "Via.nceilor 
on th5 hearing? '--ntered r* decres that tYa >ull be ditrnreed for 
vant of 9cv:ity und incarpor&tftd Into the dacrse a findir^fj- of 
facts. Inlesendt'r.t of the fin^inr of fuels ths decree dii^-tisaing 
the "hill for -rj^nt of sqx;ity su-^f l^isntly sho'-e th&t in the opin- 
ion of the "hancsllor the copartrership ~*aB not dirif.:clvscl, rind 
in thia opinion ws concur. A findinr of factg has no prcnsr 
plao* In a d-^cr^js rHn^'-irring a hill for -^^ant of 'zqvity, 

Th^ dftcras .-■•ill h* nv:>difi«d bv- srriklnp cut the fin.1- 
inpr of facts '^.nd aa "o'iifisd ^'ill ho afftr«ed. Kach ?'rrty «ill 
T>ay ono-half of the ooc'ts in this: Court* 

?:Arr"^ ?AK?y to ?ax' o'hj?.-hat.? ("'>" ths costs 



V^; iloq^;^ 


!99t b: 


iM bam BtQM'i to r.i 

,x..a Term, 1212, Ho, 
550 - 18393 

El ooiporation, ) 

Apt»ellant, ) 


7>v]? -rOT,TZ^'P-''AJ'OT KL'j'-CTBIC / ) 


A"T»h-:AT, ■PR'^I' HUFlf"IP/J. rOURT 

.S;,n„. /) 1841. A. 475 



I \ DlfLTVl?lHKD ^7. 0Pi::i01^ CT TH"K nCURT. 

\ / 

October 5t 1S*^9, aprellant ftnt-^red into a written ccn- 

tract with aT>'tf9ll8e t^ <io the excav:ttion rxnd construct th3 brick 

■- / 
wails of s> C'>rt'a4-fr buJliing. "^he floors of Ih-j tuiidinr wsre 

to b« of erncret'?, laid by a contractor ^ho a contract 

with appellee, ths o-ner, t*: ar r,>;a* vcrk. The -alia --ere c?-r- 

riad up to the main floor and that floor was Th'-^re . as 

to be a eecon'i story in front extending b'ick fifty feet and a 

fir« wall carried t*.'o fe-'^t above f^s Isyel of t.hc^ second floor 

on the rear tinsty feel. The *.-»lis were carj'ied ui- tc t.h" sscond 

st;->ry and t>:st floor laid in -oTC'-br-r, lo9.*, when bad «eftt"-:er 

set in ant? t>-.e work ' ae rtijipcnded until th<? follc^vinf ''arc^ . 

'^>^e architec* notified fiT?rellant that the \iv-r--nT part cf the 

walls t;QT^. In DO-d cnnnition nr>d h^ rr-urst taJcs ciosn ;j.n.i r'?"build 

Guc*"*^ t><^rtionf5 as were fcunti to he had. Appoltant refused to 

oh*^v th^ order o"^ th^ arrhttect nn'.i rrrc? ^drvl to carr .^ u^" the 

''■■tills ?itVout r^'^-ovlng the had portii^ns, '-arcV. ^X^ the arc^i"* 

*^''^ct teirrinatud 9.?''50ll'Ant • g ccntract "f ?tnploy>'u;p.t ana iTare 

it nclic? nf annh terr^inatir^n. The aro^'itvsct ro:::pl"?t"d t^e -^^nrk 

aT-v-ollant had contrv'ict,3d to do throus'h ancthor contractor and 

d'jducted frcia the contract rrics the amount raid to aprellant, 


,rioi J HI. 


.^n« "t^- 

the amount It cost to oonplsto the •■•ork and for the 'balance 
irsnfjd to ar)rellfint his final csrtl'icato for ^V^"^'.!?. Plain- 
tiff, clalninfT that, ho wai? en'.itlad to recorer on a quantum 
merui t iP.79^ , 60 , brought hin action fifainot '•ippal lunt in the 
Municipal Court. The court dirflcted a verdict for the pli.^.intiff 
for $7':)0,l7t cvarvuled plaintiff 'b ruction for a n^v trial and 
plaintiff prnsacutee this apr>«!s.l frorr; the jur'.ncint entered on 
the verdict. Plaintiff call«d eovaral vitni'cneB, arscnp th'^w 
Church, th« Architect. Tho defendant offered no tsv iditnr.-e . We 
firivi in the x-ecord nc evidence tsnding to aho?/ that th^ i-irchi- 
tect acced fraudulently either in condewninf^ a portion of <:h3 
walls <^rec:t3d hy the plaintiff or in completing thfj ^alln tVroufrh 
another contractor. The cnntrrict provided that th•«^ contractor 
phoui:? take rto-vn all portions of th-rj v/alls hich the arc'-ltect 
should by M-ritten notice conienn as un»oi.'nd or ir^prorer; that 
except in caea of a di^mite ?ir. to th^ value of «xtrs ■•'^Tk, 
"Any controvors.r or dirputa arising under thic contract >:hall 
he s^ttled by the architact, vhoi;?? decision ehsXr be fin^il and 
blndini:^ on the; partias hereto." 

'S'c think that this is hut anoih'^r or? th== nany attempts 
that hav'i boen mads to avoid t.h'>i certiflcats cf an architect 
given in purs'uance rf the provisions of a tvildinc contract pro- 
vidinn thfit Ruch certificate Phall be final and bind1n{^ on th« 
p'a*tie8, by nubnittinr the quc-niticn of the arf'-unt due to a 
jury, ana th^t the trial .Tudi^e T^rop:;rl,y h'-Jlri th-it th'-? archi- 
tect's decinion and certificaty "vssi'e conclnpjve ^xnd therefore 
properly dlrectetl the jur^r tc find for the a^^ount the architect 
decided and certifievi was du'?. 

The vf:?rdict ie free fro^rj srror £;nd thy iiidgw-^nt ia 





r)fijttMI»aiiq il. 

itas, iiv 

ch Tern, 1C12, IFo. 
396 - 18441 

J. A. CrORB, 

Appall 8'; , 



) / 


> / 


Appellant . 


/ 18 4I.A. 486 

Ndelivered the opinion ot? the court. 

\ ■ / 

In trespaao for false inprisonrisnt ty plaintiff Gore 
againat I-Iarshall Field &. Coaipany, a corporation, there '^as a 
verdict for the plaintiff for ^500 damages and from a judgmant 
on this verdict the; defendant prosec./tes I'^is appeal. Plain- 
tiff "boup^ht and paid for an overcoat in the 'baserEent of de- 
fendant's store and btartsd tc leave the store carr:/infi- the 
coat on hiR arm. He went up \.o the nain floor Hnd v/as about to 
pasB through a revolving door to the street when a. aian &ty.nling 
near the door said, "■''.et nie have the coat", and plaintiff, sup- 
poFinp that he was a docrice'jper '>ho //ishea to assist hirr^ in 
passing through the door, frave ?iiiT! the coat. He notJced after 
he had nasr.ed through the door thrit the iran had. reriained in the 
store and at once Aent hack, to^k the coat frorr; hroi, shook him 
and used language wtnicK he declined to repeat on the v.itness 
etand. The evidence do=s net shov^' t;ho this r'-sn was, nor that he 
X wfts in the service of i.he defendant. Plaintiff nsver asuh' him 
at any other time anc! th(. .'.itneEEeL for the defendant who tes- 
tified that they then saw hin also testified that they never 
saw him at any other tine, vwl that he v/as not, to thsir knowl- 
edge, employed hy the defendant. '>'e think that the jury could 
not properly find the defendant liable for the acts f r conduct 





( . "n.«lIoqqA 


s Jtrf ft 

^sniinoD -f atcTo* 9j-{1 lol t 

sl»b tef^ h 

.t'51-T'r; ,?>- 

of this can. 

Plaintiff went baclc tn the ■basement with the nan. He 
testified that ^vV»n thsy rsachei thi« foot o"!" th*? stairs the man 
had the overcoat and handed It to a man v/hora he identified at 
the trial as Kaatz, and said, "There is a coat this *aa 
trying to get out v/ith"; that Kaatz said, "'.Taat did you Ijring 

it to me for*^ .it k Jt Take ^ini to ", nentio-'inp a 

narae that h* aid not catch; that he said to ?raat2 that h*; had 
houp-ht the coat anc^ r>aid for it, and Kaats replied, "You are 
accused of st^slinc'' f^is coat and you have n"ot to ■prove that 
yov. did not steal it and p;et out of here"; that Kaatz asked 
him if he '.fculd kr-O^w t>ie iran fho sold him the coat if ha saw 
him, and h-? he "^i/i rot know if he voulf'; that V'aatz said, 
"Look for him" and >-e looked all around lor the salesf^'an, could 
rot find hjm end then "wandered" "bad- to v«h-re ^"aatz and the 
other man ipere; that just then a man vhoin he idertified at the 
trial as rcchran, a. fccr nan, cacie up n.nd asked what the trouhle 
was; that the nan V'ho "carried" him do'.vr: f^tairs said, "/ris man 
got a?'ay vith t^is coat"; that pla.lntiff said he 'bcurht it and 
Cochran ask-sd aroL-i v/hot; hf-. hcught i-u and }i^- said. Yif'. die not 
know, that he cculd net eee the clerJ^ froii: vhoin he toi.ght it, 
and Cochran said, "You have p:ct to prove that 3-0U >)0U)?ht it", 
and. he then said, "I have pet his card"and to':k fron: his pocket 
the cr^rd of ""'r . Prister; that .vas at once called, c;ame 
foiverd snd Htat^^d that hi hnd odd p.l.aintiff th?: f^at; t>at 
after sor-iS t;nirporT.ant discussion ?;ith the erplcye'^ s of Lha de- 
fendant he Ipft the stor^, takinr f/ith ^ i»ii the cocvt. 

T^uch of the testiTr.ony of the plt.intiff as to ^'hat 
occurred in ths "basemert ,Ka,s contridictdd. All of thi: /vit- 
nesses called by the defendant v/ho saw plaintiff '--n hci cane 

Ts i -t ft b9trvB{i h 

AisriT" ,bl«a toil ,s5AB:]f b» ImIi^ »r 

.aT* bit*- . -^t J rf ??»;>- 

>}i8« a: 


<\(.fMn £;tairs tectified ':hat he had the coat, when he c&uie down 
to -h-i haeeuwnt and "^rom thav. lirae until he left. Kaal.z tt:»- 
t:if'ied that "<'hen vlaini.i/f arri the othax- ■.nan carne dovm v. the 
"bafccnicut tho ot/isi- iian asjccd if h« v/as the wanarer and h? said 
no, that he vras a ealesnan; tla' the man Ih'^n said, "You hold on 
tc thai niiiHi he ttcle that coy.t out of here"; thfi,t he replied 
th.-;,.! t>iat .vas not hit i:l-;i,ce, "if you r>a»? that man take the 
cob.t you hold on tc Vim. I huvs not seen a man take a coat and't Lns.l:<^ m/seir li.-ihle." CocVran tssxificd thao \'-i diJ not 
see plciintlff on th3 di*y of t'no trt>uhle did not tell him 
that the mail with hiin M'-y.a a wat chra'^.n . 

Blj,ckstonti sc»..ya, "To const j v, -to the injury of falsa 
iinjirlson-ient thsr-'^ ai-j tw-j pointa rov-ii^itw. 1. Th^^ ieteiition 
of "'-h'3 person. 2. The unlav.-fulness ''i the dstantion.*' If in 
thif3 C'XBQ there v/as a detention of the ps^Bon lo una unl.H.ful. 
Fo cTxiie had haen corr-^iotdd, and to justifjr in an a(;txr:n for 
•'al^s irnpriaoiL^i'-jnt af-aijiat a vrlva.',e person the cidfendano .'uust 
shn.v that a ori'.i*-; waa coniitted. 

ij:uright V. "ihs-n, '^ly IlU . , y5^: . 

On the testitriony of tho plaintiff the qu.dstion whether 
there -vas a doteition of hia person is not free from douoc. /J.1 
that "f/as said "by an,' sraploy:;e of the defendant, a,Cf- "■rdinjr to his 
testirLic^ny, w-iS tV.;at Ka.!iA.z yaid, yru hav:-; f'-t to or ive that you 
dia not .Mt-,al f-ie coat and r^f^t out of hnj."^ , and t^at Oovihi-.^n said, 
you h^.ve cj'.t t-'' urovj t^iat joxi hovrf^h'': the eo'.'.t . It" thoso i;Late- 
''.entl^ or -ither of th^ti can he oonHtrj.ed as a statsiient that 
plaintiff ii::;:;;t ren^ain in th3 room until h>; had proved th^tt he 
hou)p;ht the; f;oat, then the jury iriight find that plaintiff v/ae 
detained; hut if tha stat sr^^entsi eaf; to h.^ cosictrued onJ.3' to mean 
that plaintiff -."ould not he permitted to taka tnci ooat froia the 


18 "ir- y;n"r'.f ^•i3.t 


rcom unlejBB he proved that he had bought it, th;m the jxiry 
could not properly find that plaintiff v/aa detained. Plaintiff 
claimed the coat o^d if che defendant . by its servants, did no 
rnore than to v^rrnii plaintiff to take the coat from the 
store unless he proved that he V.«d bought it, if their object 
v;as to held pcBteseion of the coat and net the detaining or re- 
fcUaiuing of th« person of the plaintiff, ther the defendant 
cacnot, fcr such act and conduct, be properly found guilty of 
false Imprisonment. 

McGlurs V. State, 9 ^. "T. R^p. 353. 
Lut if it be admitt'^d that the qiiffstion v/hether there 
-.7as a detsntion cT ths person of the plaintiff ^ms a qu.'s^ion 

fcr th3 jury, i,he ^usaticns reriain whether the court erred in 
refusing to instruct the jury at the request of the def .'.ndant 

that thsy should not under any circajristances award f^s plainLiff 

punitive daTiasea, ^I'l >»/i-v'ibher ths d-ALiages of $000 awarded by the 

Jury ar'j 3xcassive. At mast -."'lora 'vas oiily a dot-intion of the 

person of 'oh-j plai. ati-f f ■''■ v a f^w '^inatea aad f-.ere in no ching 

to sho^v ohat tha servant;-- of the d-if -Dndarit act-Jd r.ialiclou/il/ or 

y/antonly, or t'lat th^ir acta v'fre Gonceivod in a ripirit of *nis- 

chi^f or cri'iinal in'lif f<-'renne to civil ob?. irati.ons . '.Ve :-hink 

tv>at the cass is not one for tbe aY/arding of pvaiitJve dai-ia.-^es, 

or r^'art nonsy, and i'-at tha inEtruction in question slould have 

bee.n i&'iven . 

It i?, "e thinic, incrediflc tl^-at the aciual dRit.s4ri3 of 
ths plaintiff ap-i^rcxirriat I'd t^-'i d-ar>a.friiz a»h.rd-2d hirr. "oy the jury. 

Thi3 verdict is rev3rB3d and the causa re:iiaric'ed. 

•!>•. -,. . . ■■■ 


1*V 6f{ 

h Term, 1S12, Ho. 


. iiPNKKT ^, MeART?njB, ) • 

Defandant in }^;rr«:r, ) 

) ^:ir)R TO ^ar^Ji"i?Ar. -^ourt 

▼ 8, ) / 

) / 0? CHirAOO. 


Plaintiff in Krror. I ^ r\ m -^ n ja .^ tma 

184I.A. 4 87 

\ / 


The JudfTPient A-Vich this? frit nf orrcr asoVa to rsvarse 
is for llP'^^O anl was r<»nd«r«d on th^ vordict of a jury in an ac- 
tion for allsnaticn of aff ct.ionB. Krnent "^. "'cArthui?, the .^Iain- 
tiff, assarted in a "Stats-ent of Clalr^,* in th- "unlcipnl '^curt, 
that Joneph A. Fopson, tVift dsf^ndant, "causod and induced " Pearl 
^'c»rt>'ur, t\iQ plaintiff's .^i-^e, "to '5;>?.i-;'i.-,n ths said fTr^^eEt T. l^c 
Arthur ^ni rsfnse to live and cohabit .^ith him, and Haid defend- 
ant caueod th« said ■^aarl ''-cArthur to tak'^ u'; an illicit coh-ibl- 
tatir-n and dwsllinp *it"-' aaid defendant, hj noan? .vhereof said 
Srneot T>. Vci^thur lost tha affaction and scei^Jty of his ?-aid 

T>» j-;ry deciiied thai th*? ch>ii"p;s -^^.s ■•'ell founded and 
rendered the vei'dict heretofore '.lentioned. TY-.f. !::l:-(.intif f in 
er'or ciaireo ar^orifi: his assignsi'^nte of srror these ohjoctions tc 
the judgment: Int, tVat it is aj^a n?t thg v.tjirr.t cf the evi- 
dence. '?ndf that an Instri cti^n en the dgprc'-r of nrcfif rgqjilred 
to r-up.taln thci pi, siint iff ' e oass -v^aE srronsous in that it stated 
that "a pr^'-'cndRranco cf the evidence'*, in5t>-sad of svldsnce 
si'ff i'ri*^nt to Ratir.fy fhn .jury "h^ycnd a r'.-'aaonahl^ douht", n&B 
enourh to estahlich th« oTatntiffR case. ?rd, *hat "th*;rff -as 
error in per'?attinr plaintiff's attorney to -isk a lonfr series of 

laadinp que«tionB.* 4th, that there as error in adaiittin<? in 
evidence a letter purp'trting to have "been written by Pearl T*c 
Art>"!ir to 55rneBt T), ^/cArthur. IJth , that t^.ere was er-or in ^id- 
mit*ine in evidence & letter claimed to have been written by 
■^earl ^cArthur to the defendant Hopson; and 6th, that the ouurt 
erred in ttd!<? in ovi'ie«c9 what purported to he a marriaffe 
certificate purpnrtlnf to be by a Justice of the ''aacc of 
^^ilvauke* County in Wisconsin, 

If the aseumption ir. p;cidG t>H.t the narriafte of the 
plaintiff to Pearl »'cArthur wao sufficiently proved by th-? evi- 
dence or »a» adsTjitted by the defen ^ant'e pleadings, ooncor'iinK 
which we shall indicate owr opinion in dlgc^esing the last ob- 
jection noted, T^e could not undertake to say that the plain- 
tiffs case wae not sufficiently proved to Juetify the verdict of 
the jury. This dieposes of the first objection we have? listnd, 
exce^'t as it rsay refer tu the aant of proc-f of the n!arriaf»;s. 

The seconJ objection is not v^ell i^aken. A preponderance 
of eviifence was sufftr'i*rnt tc eetablish the plaintiff's cage. In 
our opinion, in ?> r^ivil case it i? only when a verdict arfiinBt 
thfj defendant requirsg that the jury should find him r".ilty of 
"an infa-nouB criire" that thr' la^ of t>>i3 rt?tte demands proof 
"beyond a r«af»onable doubt." 

Tee PoloCTon v. -uechsle, 119 111. App. 593 » '^^-^^ 
cases therein clt«d, und (^rans v. "^'n^asfyr, 140 111. Ap •. fA7\ 
altio '"iller v. P-slthaeser, ?B 111. 302. 

The third objection we ne^-fd not dipcu&s^ in viciw of 
our dHciricn as tr ths remaining' obj^ctionfc. The sar>s Ifealinp 
qiitestione at leaat are not likely to be aak^Jd in another trial, 
Thn control of thia matter in largsly in the -Jipcreti^n of the 
trial court. 

■i ■iV'Sn O ! -in 

I ' f r< rr -^ ! , rt "T" : Y» r u *»o,r 


The fourth objection Is, in our opinion, well fcundod 
in that, it was err«ir to adtriit tbs lott«r spaclfisd. 'Put we do 
not regari it sxe an error rsquirin^ ravereal, "bseaiise ?<e can 
not see hcs- it could kav^j injured the defendant or ^on«fit{.ftd 
the plaiatiff. 

But the fifth objection *e regard aa fatal to thla 
judpK'iat. The error in adxr.ittinf; this Isttsr ar:iin3t Hopson 
it undoubted unuer tha doctrine l.iid aown by our Suprems Court 
in P;fe^or v, Kuitor, 149 III. v21. fe? jilso Jonos v. Jonae, 124 
111, App. 201. 

It ic ini;itted in b'shaif of the plaintiff that x.hi& 
l9'. ter, ?«rit,t«n Vy "^earl Mc^rthur to the defendant and found in 
his prsKQssinn, ic shown iy proof "aliunde the Ictt-ar itself* 
to >:ave been •adopted or sanctioned by noiso reply or statarn^nt 
or act" on the part of t> s defendant, '^a do not think thai it 
apoeaTB from th--2 s^idarce that the sets of fcndnsss bstvosn 
the parties had anv rcforsnce or relation to this letter. 

It srould be £sor^ to the purpose perhaps to «ay that 
the lettiT by itself, liks the letter fror Pearl 'fcArt^u:- to 
har husband, sas probably ?-3t^o\it influf^nce on the verdict ; but 
aside fror; the fact tha* it vu^ti a ?n-ctter whic"-- n'Jfht have been 
prssfiSd insistently on the jury as a factor in detarrnininfr th«3 
credibility of «itngfcse8, it muRt bo notod that the pluintiff 
hiPiJ5elf to have rQ^;arded it as vary elrnif leant proof of 
hie .life's infidelity. It v^h not until he had found and r^-r-ad 
it that he manifes^ted ;...!iy ^rt'at roi^entc^ent on account of hie 
is'ifo'si remnrkal-le relations ?/ith uipaon. 
I As to the sixth cbj action noted, it rrsay "be considered 

doubtfxil if there was any competent and Euffi'-ient evi donee of 
rsarriape between the plaintiff rj.nd Pearl -"cArt^ur presented at 

1 iJ I'CS ..*» << J. 

r », • > 

::ici 7 « 


^f^*' *iff. 

.. .r'iSduah 

Tir^l Tssiri'f soar 

tho trial. In '-'eppler v, KlBer, 23 111. Ap^". 645, this ""ourt 
held in an fiction for criminal cmveraaticrij that the plain- 
tiff b apssi/.ii'.p: in his teatir.ony cf the v^oraan involved aa "^y 
rife", :.aD r.c evidence of a marriags, "bQ-np: a mere acknovlgdfj- 
ment of a rel&ticn, not proof of un actual marritt*re. In the 
cage at "bfir, hcv?evcr, the plaintiff in answer to dirsct queo- 
tiona B&id that he waa fiiUTied to Pstirl ?/o Arthur en FeV-. 2, 
190c, at /Jilwttvkee, ?'i6C nein. Perhaps this, in tho abeance 
of contradiction, ~c.uld be sufficient avi-icnce cf a ceremonial 
marriage if the plaintiff h?i.d etepred there, but h'i proceeded 
to put in evidencQ (over objection) a certificate by a Justice 
of th« 3/eace in '/il^aiikee founty, '^if.consin, '*•> ich i.n connection 
with his ty«tijRony iiih- ued that the cereracny of marriafre hs was 
referrlnfT to ?/af5 hefcrs on9 .T. '^. Ilart, Justice of the Peace 
in "ilwaukee County. It may b-s ccnsjidered, au we have paid, that, 
th?3 prsaentatiun of trie certificate in connection with *^ls tae- 
tlssony ■*ras equivnlont to hie testifying to this fact; but tha 
cartificate Itself is not ovidence ^r-.f the official character of 
the Justics cr of hla rifht to pax-form a mctrria^rc csremony, or 
that the c??r3t^-ony s-'at norfcnr.od, rind -r.aE not ndrAt-nlhlQ as such 
evidance. At the* bstt it ^sust be said therefore, that ths svi- 
dsncs of th^ narriage ^hic'-', is essential tr the r'^ccv^ry In 
thie clasa of cases .as v^ry scarty. Aa r>& h'-ld the introduc- 
tion of the letter la^t dnecr ib'i^d ae by itself ravsrfilble error, 
we do not resx our d^:casii-n en thie scantnssD cf proof. If we 
could take judicial notictj of the rulos cf ths v-unicipal ccurt 
tfo 8*-oulo h&ve no diff.culty In h; Iding, ae aef«ndan.t in error 
ars^uea, that the stats of th--; pl-sfedings shosre a practical adrds- 
olcn 6E&tha i^^arriafie by the defendant and thn.t he cannot iow be 
heard to question it, T'-ut the Supreme nci:rt has said in its 

iia ml-- 61 •ff 

i:v,. ./ .■! .. ,ijK . J r; .. ;j 

opinion in ?lxtiy v. Chicairo "ity 'R&ilv&y Convany, 2bO 111. 478, 
f-iat the Appsllatp "ourt cannot In an/ c&ee rc-winr fror-' +hs Mu- 
nicipal C«iirt ta\-« .^udlRial notice of the rulep of tvat fourt 
nor concider thca unl«8S they is-re m;ide part of t*^* r*T'-^rd 'by a 
>;ili of excsptionc. They »rtf not eo Tiade a part of th? rtfccrd 
in th« c'-ee s-t bar. 

The judpR'.er.t of tVf Municipal *"fy.rt. I5 rcv^rper? and 
the catiae remanded to t^^at roi^rt^ 


I. •« -, 

ih Term, 1912, ITo.' 
557 - 18577 

next frl«nd. 



▼ B. 

TH.-^ C'lICAOO, ROCK irr.AMD & 







OF COOK coujrrY. 




The plaintiff in thia action, vs^o is the aproiiee in 
this cnurt, a minor, raoovereA on January 27 t 19l'\ a judgment 
in the f^^perlor Court for $10,000 agninat the def«'''dant corpora- 
tion fr^r an injury - the loss of a Icf - suffered aR he charges 
throuf'"; thg neglirence of t^at norporation's servants. The 
judfinent was on the verdict of a jury. 

Ths dscllaration in the c-iss, on y^hic- it -^ent to the 
jury, iraa of three counts . Th^ first count charges thai the de- 
fendant was at the time of the accident {J^nxuxry ?, 19' ~) a 
conrnon carrier of psssengero ami th^it the plaintiff s^ae a passen- 
ger on one of the defendant 'b trains and had paid his far3 as a 
passenger; that at Auhurn ''ark et'Atirn it v,us the duty cf the 
defendant to "brin?? itc train, and particularly the car the plain- 
tiff Ti'as on, to a full f-top H.nd IcsvJp sail train at a full stop 
Iohk enoufrh to enaVlg the plaintiff to eafely alit"ht, "•'bitu that 
while the plaintiff was ^ilh all due cars antl caution for hia 
o^sn safety n y. in the act of st^ipplnt- from the front pl^itform of 
the said car n a the defe-ndant st m negligently and -without 
"??ftrninF to th^ plaintiff caused the said ear ic Y:a suddenly and 
violently started « » without hrlnrlng the ear^ to a full 
stop and standstill for a -ufficient lon^rth of tine 50 that ths 
plaintiff mipht safely alipht therefron; by ri<5anc -^h-ireof the 
plaintiff was thrown to the f^round there fros-i and off the front 


• aaY'>0«T[ . ,10. 


7*0 1)1X1 

inrtt't s.-f 3:51 »f!* &* owciT^' bjBw ItlJ^nx^f 

platfora of said car and under the wheela of tho said train of 
care" and injured. The second count haa the same recital ao 
to the defendant 'o chfesracter aa a costnon carrier and the plain- 
tiff a statue ae a paaaenper, but allefrea ae thej n«glifrence 
"hat the defen^lant negligently pemitted anew ana ice tc accumu- 
late on the platfomn and etepa of the car the plaintiff saa in, 
and allowed t>*em to remain there, hj^vine- actual or constructive 
notice of the condition, and that \*'hil^ the defendant was a 
paasenger and after the car had come to a full stop and atandetil^ 
at Auburn Park etation and the plaintiff was rightfully upon the 
etepe of the front platform of the car and about to etep off from 
said plfitforn nd steps to the station, the train and oxr 
suddenly and violently started^ ^hore'oy and "by raason of the 
negligence of the defendant in allov/in^ anow and ice to accfirnu- 
late on eald platforwa and steps the plaintiff, althou<y>! In the 
exercise of due care, unavoidably slippsd on Bairi snow and ice 
and fell froia and off the front platform -itni stsps of said car 
to the ground there ana uadar the wheals", stc. The third count 
(added by ar.endiu'jTjt tc tha orifrinal declaraticn "b?rfore trial) 
alleges aa to tha status of the plaintiff ^c-ir-Jly that h^ f^Ska a 
passer^F^Jr on the defendarst, ' s car v-ithout ac?ertin.c, h2 had 
•paid hlff fHxa*, and asrerts that the def3n(iant "so cai'elassly 
and Improperly drove an.i lanar-nd the s^ii'? train cf cars and the 
ear upon rhich the plaintiff ^ras a paEsenp:*??r that by and thrGUf;h 
the nsplipence -and impropsr conduct of thti defendant in that be- 
half, '5?hil« the plaintiff was in the exercise cf due care and 
caution for his own j^afoty, the said plaintiff ?5ai5 thrown off of 
said car upon -"hich he v'aa a pstsseiirer without v'?arninr "o hijn of 
any kind", and "to thf? rrcund thera from and off tha platform 
ef said car and under the wheels of said train cf cars", -Jtc, 
The defendant pleaded the general irssus. The 

'rf* ,a- 

i fbnu ha* "Si 
3 bnoaoe v 

>fc mf9 

>i:- r i* 

bewol ' 

hnm ^ttoli 


'» \i t 

my\^b miit 

« •▼01 

-H{U TJBO fcl> 

objactione raade to the jurtnnsnt by the d«f -ndaunt and etrpusd "by 
it in this court hx&: 

yiret , that the verdict is against th« weight of the 

gecond , that the court hslo* e^rred in not piving a 
per-^raptory inetruction for the defendant at the conclusion of the 
Qvlience for the plaintiff or at the conclUKion of all the evi- 

TMrd» thnt the court erred in c-ivinp certain instruc- 
tions 'Thich recofjnized the charH.cter of the plaintiff at the 
time of the accident ae a paeseh^er on the train of a common 
carrier and declared the ; of a cosfmon carrier to a paseenger 
to be to exercise the hiphcat degree of c&rc and skill contsistent 
with the practical operation of its road, thua ipnorinr a con- 
trollinp- fact in this c-ioe - that the tJlaintiff wae ruiing on a 
pass srhich contained this stipulation: 

■By the acceptance and use uf this ticket any and all 
claiias on thin company, ishether due to negligence of its agents 
or otherwiae, for Injury to the person or less of or datn&^e lc 
the property of the voider are waived and released, and he 
agre-.s to identify hitiself T.'honaver roqu-jstsd. The company re- 
serves the risrht to recall or tako up this ticket at any time. 
I accect the ahove conditions." 

"SVurth, t>iat the court erred in giving an inetruction 
that the fact that the olaintiff was usins" a pass with tho said 
Btipulatinn would not in itj^elf reli-vo the dafandant from 
liability if at the ti.-re the plaintiff ?/aE a minor. 

"Fifth, that the court erred in filing ths following 

instruct ion concerninp preponderanca of evidence, ^or conven- 

i'^noe of reference hereinafter, -^e deno^sin^it-s it ><": . 1. 

"The jury are instructed *hat tha TJlaintiff !r;ugt es- 
taMiK>^ hio case by a preronderance of the oviclence. fhir pre- 
ponierance, hoivever, is?, not alone necessarily det^ri'^ined b y 
the numb^ijr of witnesses t;;8tif inp tr, a particular f'iCt or state 
of facte. In determining upon 'hich side the pro onaerance of 
tha evidence is the jury should tak? into consideration the op- 




portunitiea of the ceveral -"'i tnescea for pecinjr or knowing the 
tMngc at ut which they teatity; their conduct or deroanor *"hile 
testifying; their interest or l3.c'' of interest, if any, in the 
result of the caas; the relation or connection, if fi.nyt bctvieen 
the witness anc) the pHrtica; the apparent consist sncy, fairnea© 
and confrruity of the evidence; the probaliiity or irprohaTality 
of the truth of their several etatowonta in view of :*j. 1 the 
other evidence, fricta and circurastancea prrved on th^ trial; and 
from all these facta det«r^ine tipon which side is the wei(»ht or 
prancnderance of the evidence," 

Sixth, that the court erred in giving the firei tivo 

of the three instruct iona follov?ing (»hich first t*o for con- 

veni-^nce ire denoTrinate instruct lone ^ois. J and 4 reapaotively) 

and in rsfuEinf? to pive the last ons cf the t'-^ree (r.-'^ich vve da- 

nojr.inate Refused Instruction A). As th^y portain to thn due 

cars required of the plaintiff to enable him to recover, se 

group them together. 

■IN^TliUrTTIOH 5. The court further inEtrunta you that 
before you c&n find a/^ainst the plaintiff on the i?round of con- 
tributory negligence you raust believe that the plaintiff did not 
use such care and cat! I ion as a pjsrsr n of his afe, intelligence, 
judfTisent and experience would have ordinarily used under the 
circojTJStances surrcunciing hlK it the tiixc." 

Tf'FTRUCTIOK 4. The jury are inslrvct-jd tv^&t the ordi- 
nary care required of the plaintiff as defined in thesft InBtruc- 
tionz is such care ae an crdinory prucent peracn of the same a^a, 
intelligence, experience and capacity v/culd exercise under the 
sa:?^ or sir.ilar circunif.tanoeB. " 

"BlTPT'rFD TK'^TRUCTTO-fJ A. Ordinary cure is thoit deprea o* 
car5 'A'hich a reasonably prudent person ■a-culd exercise unier the 

same circuTisritancss and ccniM ' ionfi. ■ 

Peventit, that th'=?re is a varla.-!ce b'^tv?eftn »;he allepa- 
ticnc of the d-5claration and the proof, in t-ha-. the all*rition 
in each count is that h'^ fell under the -'heels cf the train at 
Auburn, -^^hilc; the proo' is that he bo fell about a Ihoui&nd feet 
«outh thereof. 

^^"6 have carefully considered the evidence in this cause 
Tlth rcfrrence to the conter.tlcn viporoualy made "by the defend- 
ant that the weiph.t of the evidence ic ao clearly apsinst the 
verdict and .judmwnt thst we should eet then aside, s.nd are un- 
abla to afrree with it. The qin^et. ion whether the accident h&pt ened 
s.e the material allcg;ation» of the declaration calrl it did, "be- 
cause of conditione r-hich involved the fault of the f'efendant'e 
apentB, or In a different v&y, invrlvinp; *he tilaintiff's ovn 
neglir^enoe only, wac a fnir one for the Jury, and aftf.r (riving all 
due weight to the arpunents urped by the defendant 'e counsel we 
do not find mich inherent ir^prohahilitiee in the rlalntiff'e 
ptory of the accident an tc ,justifv up in holdln/? th«.t the cr??- 
dcnce which the jury rho^sd hy thfir verdict the,'^ jreve it ehoiild 
be held uniR^arr anted. Under these cironstancee it ^ould he uss- 
leae for us to discuss in detail the testimony. Vo eye n-ittiess 
of tho eccideit but the plaintiff t?;E;t1.f iid. "''or do ^-^ consider 
that thffre was def-lviite c^ntradicticn in the svirieics offered 
h-.' thp defendant of nnythin;? vhich the plaintiff stated. TJn- 
dfchtadly the defer'd&.Ht *^©.s at n dir? advantage in that t.h» acci- 
dent wat, S50 far as it '-?ag corjocrned, arr-irently "a hlind on':'*, 
in the parlance used in miO, cc^s^s - one in ^'■*"ich no revovt r,sie 
made and in which no "iy^. "vitnec-B -fme av?,ilHhi?> for th^ir in- 
v-^etiration; hut t^ls -^otild not ,Hi?t,if - ue, v.rx'iGT th3 »vi 
as it apT>->ars in the reecrd, in esttin?: aside the decision of 
tho jury on the facts, 

A rtore difficult cfueetion is presented tc ue by the 
arfrumcnt that under the conditions of the pass on rvhieh the 
plaintiff vme rtdin.^: he was net a pnaseng^r en th^3 defendant's 
train in the sense that required the defendant to exerciee 


s»w Hi 

to-^-arda hiK th':^ hir^t^ct do^ree of cars ccntiptcnt t-ith the prac- 
tical operation of the road, "but weo a mere licensee, to -.vhoia 
t*i« railroad cotipHny was liabls for an arcidant li]ce this only 
for nsglip:ence ac p;ro88 that it must in the eye of t>ir; laj? "be 
call-sd wilful, and by tho furthar proposition that "by the ac- 
ceptance an 5 use of the pass the plaintiff must be held, in ac- 
cordance f-iih ihs lanruafs of tha conditions on itfl ban)c, to 
haro •vraived and releaaod" "any and all cl«,iTnB on the company, 
whether due to negUfTftacs of its S4~ents or otherwise for injury 
to the person, ■ 

Pecauae r.,'^ tha proven use by the plaintiff of tha pass 
with this condition upon it, the defendant naintaina the court 
should hn-VH persrfptcrily instruotsd the jury for the isfendnnt, and 
failing in that, should not hava ^ivan the instructions describ- 
ed in ths third and fourth objections of the dsfeniant indicated 
in the atater^ont prefijced hsreto. 

linlsss prepared to ad-lt t.*:a';. the c-urt ' -s 'xv^Vig in its 
deciaion !»nd in Iho rs&soning cf the opinltn 'n ?f;nntj.Tlvania 
f^ojapany v. ^rvis, l :??^ 111. Ap;o. 567, ^"3 nust hold these vicsitiona 
of the defendant in the caeo at bur not "'*;11 tak'^n. It is the 
co.nt^r.tion of the def-rjiaant that the court r-ae vfrcng in the Pur- 
vis caae. It c>''f4lleni?«is the positioaB that t.-h^> pass -yl'^ its 
Cfndltlone ' a contract and :hat the hrlnf'in,? of ths S'lit 
was a disaff irmancs. 

Put even on tho aRsuniotlon - v»"icT '.-t do nol r'-^v-i - 
th.-«t the theory uphold by the coui-t in the "?iirYis case -kv to 
the di:-?aff irraaacQ of tho non^ract 'r&a inov-srract, vm do not aslant 
to tha -iefendant'e contention In rof^ard to the pasfi ioccribed in 
thiE cr^&e » In our opinion it ras not, as ^^alntained by the de- 
fendant, a r.ora gratuity , "i frss fit*'' or a frss licenRS - as it 
is rariously called in the argument. 

tmdti SBO 
%p llfii filter 


A crpy of the pass, t>xcei>l that preewnably the "blanks 

indicated in the cvpy were filled up «ith the prcpsr n&rsee and 

termu in the cripinal used \y the plaintiff, rr&c introduced in 

Qvidence and on ite face read as follose: 

"Pcolc Island Line, 
1910 K?Rployes "Quarterly ?aBS. 


Chicago and 


Hot pocd on Trains ?," A, '7f B ana 11. 
Void unices countorsinined by L. f^. Geward 

or D. T., Grdit2. 
Countarelrned: H. A. ¥udrQ, 


Ar-und and "bGneath this text were numbers, uaoh in a 
BTT-all line square lik« this [Tj frgn 1 to l^A . Thsae numbers 
>ere to b« punched out as the paoe or ticket ..'as us3d on each 
trip taken on it. Thus by it the ■jrr.ploys "as furnished with 
traneportatlon to and from Chics4,*o to the sini;l5f place raantioned 
in the pass each day for ~)7 days. 

Th« plaintiff was an e.riploys of the dafenlant C;n3pui7. 
Re wae "a general utility rtan" for the c--iBpany, h.; says, "but 
hit: pcEition en who looks '.^as as barj^age man". Kc vcxk-id on 
the main floor of the- dgfsndant'a ataticn in Chicag on Van 
r-'uren sti-eet in the ha^suf^o roovi. -^e l.jLvsd at iv''l6 Ivornial ave- 
nue, if-'i^ich is n^ar the Auburn Par-: clatiOR of the read at 7i th 
street, -^lifcht cr nins nilss frora ths r lace of 'nit; daily f/ork. 

The tsetlf^cn^' of one T.orsnz, e^aploysd by th^ defaniant 
company in ths office of its sup rlntendent, and that cf cae 
Creitz, ^'rrployjd in the PrsEidant's office, vrpyr (as indaed tha 
printed blank dosn) thf^t ths hsstcral cf this pass 'vas not &ii 
laclated or sporadic inoidfint cf an acccECdation cf t^ 1 art icular 
man, b\.t part of a system of the relationf? of the road to Its 
sniployea ?/hich had been continued for a:iny years. 

It is practically conceded - at all events ?-e held it 




n;t bs!:hri ei: 

jq »d 

1 bssntiq 


St t - J>&ftaa«o» xilMoiiOiBiq at .f 

true - tliitv uhe 1&^ cf Illi!iOi& rendere invalid cu ap;uingt "a 

paauenger for hire oi ccmsideratlon, the- exor.;ptlcn or aiver and 

releaee frcsr. liability for negligence which appe&rt ca the tack 

of the paoE involved in thie CBce in these *'ords: 

••>"y ths acceptance anH ur%e of this ticket any and all 
clairas on this ?onpary, wv^thar cTu^ to nftglipence of ite ar=nt8 
or oth*?rwiKe for injury to the p'sraon m « of the holder, are 
■waived and releaoftd." r. x %. 

Illinois Central Ballroad v. PsfsTse, 17-^ 111. 15. 

Th« qu^eticn therefor© arie^e, irresrect jv« of the 
infancy of ths plaintiff, -sh^rthsr f^is •'■•^plcye, llvln*r upon the 
line of thft read njid rf-inr tc «,nd frctr; vcrk each day on a 
coupon paea issu'sd >;y th" i^c»ipany to its eirploy«?s in accordance 
with 1^ recognised cyft^n;, ?.'Ra nc-t "a paacenger for hire** ^nd. 
"for consldfyration"? ^-s thini: he *■&», 

Th-* circi.rcf:tf.vno«£ cf t!:e itsrn&nra ar-d use of tho paea 

in Doyle v. PitchhtiTg P'iilrr,ad Co-prany, l66 Mass. 49.'^, did not 

differ fror. thof.'; in the oaee at bar, find the reaGoninf^ of Dit- 

'^ourt coajT-iands itself to vr. r-^.'^n. 11 saye - 

"It fpirly nay Yrn said ir thiis c--?Ai59 th^.i th2 t^.ckat 
formed a part cf the consideration by shich the plaintiff* s in- 
tsstat?; ?.'U5 induced t'"i "'>iin' ^.nv C'r-t inV'C in ''he «:?r-^.plo.yr''^nt of 
ths defendant and was not a s;ere priatuity. The ticket v«as only 
!-3rf:n t^ p-mfiT ti '-'"•' ^'"'' no* 1',: ?'12_ (rf thc r:e , '^v t , _^o f_^ j^fjr^ a?; • --arS t 
onl y to such as worked i_n ''^octon and 1 Jy 3 A on the 11 na of ths 
rallrC'Ud in t;on-^^ c th -^r ^^ l:vc^ . It >"->*d v^-f .^tpwo: , i'>'-"rsf ' r.- , 1q 

taptscial circurjstHnces attending the psrforFiance of cervices for 
tho "..npany\ ^h"?: arrarire-n^^r't '''ftll ^i.'ty havQ h?;ftn v-^^r'.rO^d as 
[ mutually advantafreous, l^y it the defendant was enahled to ob- 
«. tain the VyCTyi^fiP. cf those -ho -.'Id rr^t I'lve in '-r <-'.on --n-i thus 

I to draw its •g^nployse frots a larrer body, subject only to the ex- 
p.Tnne cf thesr trar .r>nrtat ion, "jn-: th* p'.ur'n'" i'^f ' ^ inf:';? ^al-; was 
enabled to enter the defandant'e v^mployfsent on equal terse 
[ as to r'arnp s'lfh thori'? l.V/inr: in Ponton, '^'i t> nu'. ^-•■^.r.ul-J inr as 
i to svhat th e riphtft of the plaintiff's intaetate to the ticket 
I wrul(i hKve hesn if at any tiT^iw he h^d left tha d'?ffindan**? rrv" 
ploysient before the end of the wonth, ffe think it plain, as al- 
r'lady ctatod, thst as thir. nne^ r.tandf? the tiok'^t r^rcpcrly cannot 
I be raparded as a gratuity. 

Counsel for apT'sllfint in the reply hrij^f , conr^^'intinr 

on thie case and others, say there is no evidence in th'i casei at 

^1 ,%i^ 


^A SSJftO 



bar that there was consideration for the P*M9t and that it «&» sk 

matter of proof, ths burdf^n of which was uoon the plaintiff. If 

such proof had ba«n atter.ipted, th?!y say - 

*"^Q ciifTht have b«sn able to eho.*, ;:jHong a frreat raany oth«r thin<:^s, 
that ail of tha crcployea of th':; Kock IclHnd clc not live upon its 
line, and yat there ie lo difference in the pay of thos^ *ho 
r.iuat paj- for their trani>iiortation and those who ride on the Rock 
Island free." 

We think that which vras t-hoirn raised the presumption 
that the pass wae no mere gratuity, but a thing for v?hioh the 
defendant conpany received conaideration. Certainly if it had 
been shown by the defendant th?it "thers ia no difference in the 
pay o^ those who atust pay for th^lr transportation and those who 
ride on the Rock Island free", it would still b« undoubtedly «* 
true that the defendant was enabled "to draw its ^inployes from 
a larger body, subject only to the expense of their transporta- 

The sorda ^e have italicized in the quotation froo! Doyle 
V. FitehbTirg Railroad Company, oupra , inight all be onltted with- 
out in th-i loaet disturbing the ar^jwent that there was a con- 
sideration for the pas8. Indeed notwithstanding -'hat is aaid 
in the opinion the stataaent of the bill of excej tione in l.he 
Doyle cuee as ^iven in ths re; crt ie - 

"There was a sell knovm and uniforzs cuetorj of the de- 
fer.dfc,nt ?<nCA'ri to rorneiius J. Dcyl'j It- fiiinish to its employes 
?>ho wcrked at Tioston and lived at £.or:*= other place on the line 
of the read a tickot in the foi-Tn hcreufter set foi'th. Thn rate 
of ■■ra^eB paid to thw defendant * a enploye&s for a lylyert class cT 

work wus the ra- c. vbeth": 

vf}- -^r e hf^ vorked , cr at &<. 
f urijinTuTd ■..ith ow: cl' i 

r the crployc- . reLiLlf;d vA. the f lace 
r_e r Iher place on rhs liricj , and h e gas 
er.i\> re f' ui d t i clr;- 1 1. . " 

^Zhcrs are o iher ai-tht .1 i-ies hcldinf: an triploy^-e ' f- pass 
viot a gratuity, ths r-^aeoninp, of s';l;ich v.e think it applicable to 
th«j case at bar, and .vhich wo think cjin not Kuco«s;?fully be dis- 
tinguished froia it in material siatt-n's. Anong them are: 

Hebart v. Portland Railroad Company, IO5 ^aine, 





r • saw 0'i»c{i Satli •zad 
':- ,T2?.:f ;-TJ'.!^ ."i<T-,r:n c 

-f rror 

■^1 lif'f.fC 




Hallway Company v. Stevene, 95 ^^» S. 6^'?; 

Wllllaras V. Oregon Short Line K. Oc . , lb Utah, 


VcNulty V. Railroad 'Tompany, l52 Pa,. Ct . 479. 

Indeed we do not tihini that the principle involved 

in the loaic lin*? of "stor.k r'*8R cases", co-called, is really very 

different from that inrclTed here. 

The Eupreae Hourt of Tenneeeee, gcin^? further than le 

n<»ce8sary for the deciaion of ^he caee at "bJir, has uctarr-jd - 

citing authoritiee which it deciio applicable - that - 

"The weight of authority and cf sound policy we think 
it that rh^re a servant p-^rfortas all hie '.--crk at a fixed irlace 
and the Jiuiiiter either by cufttoit, or gx'«iiuity ci*rrit'i; hi::: tc and 
from his ?'ork, the asrvant doinr no eervlcc fcr the- ir.:irtc*r on 
th« train, he tb to ha ti'eated as a piisaenger. " 

Transit Co, v. Ven&hie, 21 Tennessee, 46o. 

If the pl&iutiff 'b paaa •fr-as not Ji frr&tuily, and hs *a8 a 
passenger in th-j senoe oi' beinp a "paeo^nger fox- hira", cik ^^^e 
think he waB, thsn, uu we have hergtofore indicated, tha contsn- 
VAona of thy defendant, hassd ok the coniiitions printed on its 
back, uTi noc »ell taken. 

Instruction ^'c , 1 ia vigorously attacked by lh« ap.^'Sll- 
ant, '■''€ do not think that tho f=?upr-3nti Court h.'iS evar revarsed 
a judf^ont on the grojn^ of thii iantructicn alone, anl vtci are 
not •-rililnfr to dr so. 7h^ rupretss Court has said th;it ix, "can 
not he said that th« Court haa ^riven its aaquali fiijd a- >roval" 
to it, or that it ssipiht not bo ui^iiouiing in certain Ciisss, and 
it h-e (E. ?. «k 3, Ky, '.?o , v. r.aAvler, 225 111., ->^'l) animadverted 
on it in caesa rev^ro^d for -tnsr reaaona; {'jyona v. iij.'er3on, 
?4«? 111. 409) but it rafuaed to r averse on account of this in- 
struction in the La^-ltr case and in Dsrmg st <ii. v. Parsak, 
227 111. 71. 

JTor do ^e think that tak-^n together the instructions 


.a) *, 

jUitAi •« 9b 10 


upon contributory negligence or the pr<4pcndcranc9 of j^xcof con- 
cerninir it could hbre misled the Jury or require a reveraal 
at our hsnde, although we do not regard the phranlng of instruc- 
tion three ae oomTnendal-le, 

The refu&al of instruction A. was not, in our opinion, 
error; nor ic we think the poaition of the appellant concarring 
an all^ped "futnl variance "between the allegations of th« decla- 
ration and the proof" ne?d8 diacuaeicn. **« recojrnlze no such 
variance. But if there wafi one it >'as not miide ths ;ubjiCt of 
an objection or cocaeicnl in the Court belc*, rfhich is fatal to 
its consideration here. 

The judgment of the Superior Court is affinaed. 

-nc ^'H •Hi "zo sonesilg^a xxoistdilitaoo aoqw 

Xj»»^»t*i a •'( sdi b9l9tm •rAd hluoo il saints. 

in Btfi i-i ,«baKif 1UO is 

.»XrfjibR9cuaon an ••iif^ aoi# 

9miB4 tdOSliAT XjJ«1^" b^ 

3aib ar 0if^ brui uotijb 

♦ ant oJ^iano' 

»?', - 18428 


vp.mT)A GAUGE3?, ) i 

Arocllee, ) 


▼«. ) , 

) i OV COOK COiniTY. 


Appellant. ) i -« r\ - -^ - 



Th« appellee in thle case recovftred a Judprrent in the 

County rouTt of this County, ?ebruary i:>, i:a2, for five hun-ired 

doHa-rs against the appellant, a fraternal insurance corporation, 

on a benefit certificate issued l)y eaid appellant, which prorided 

that: ^ ' 

"In consideration of the warrantiee contained in the 
anolioatlcn of '^rledrich Cauger for ner;"b8rs^ ip in Council 630 
of rv.iragc, Il.iinoiE, v'hich ar« iraade th«? bagle 'inti a part of this 

contract, the Asifsrican Patriots hereby accepto this applicant as 
a !36>?nb*rr of eaid council and prcmieee to pi«y out of its T-snefit 
"=^nd "Five ''un?rsd T)oll'ira le ''^cida Cimg-STf ■-vif'5, ?ia T'eneficiary 
or P^n'if Iciartea, as ^.r^ vided hy the coTiatl -rjlion a n d la&s of 
the American Patriote regvlatinf^ tY.<i pajmient of Tenefits, 'jr^on 
sat i:? factory evidence of the death of said r-iefnhsr and upon the 
surrender of thia certificate." 

Th-s Italice fiTo oiirs. ^e Ta^-^rsly th-3n In this ur.d 
suhseqiient q^jotatione from docunentg apt'earinp In th*? record to 
call attention to ths rjords affect in?? the quest ion on which, this 
appoal, ac r^e view th» natter, 5iuat turn. 

This certificate is dated iJece-j-.ber 28, 1906, and "bears 

a notation that it waa delivered yarch 2, 190'^, It also bears 

the follo-vinp undertaking of Fri«drich aaujT'jr: 

"I hereby accept the itliovs certificate on the cc nd i 1 1 en s 
na;?!ed hsrein and warrant that I am in good health, 

Frisdrich Gauger." 

Priedrich (Ts.ur';r seenss, previous tc t^.o dato cf this 

certificate, to have been a rerib«5r of a Bocisty called the B&nlc- 

c-ra ^rndowsent and Mutual As no ci at inn of Chicago. Thie asrocia- 



D a 

.4 . ITJ 

tion ee«nR to have "reineured* ito mesberB, or eoTnci of thero, 
yit.>3, or trannf erred t>}?>»« to, the American Patriots, f r there 
Ijs no formal application of Priedrich Gauj^er for r^enborahip in 
th^ latter body sho^n except the following {-^'ithout date), rhlch 
^ae lntr<^duced by the defendant oorapany in ovidenoe in thie case 
ae "the application for Trjsrbership p^ade by ^^iodrich Oauger to 
the American Patriots"; 

"Coniract Ko, 21o66, (>?ade in duplicate, one copy to 
bcj filed with the American Patriots anJ the other to be attached 
to the nsr^bcr's certificate,) 

In cone iteration that the sternber of the Panlcers '\ndov»- 
nent and '^jtual Asr.ociaticn of Chicago , vrhose aignat^irs appears 
bfilov, hereby warri.nt8 that the under oif^ned is n-wy of sound nen- 
tal and bodily haalth and that tha unfierni^-ned ^^ill pay to the 
Am«;rican ^atj-iotu a jnonthly aeoeearfient of the earae amount as he 
or she has been paying to the Bankers Inlov^ient and ?'titual As- 
fcociation, the Atiyrican Patriots of Springfield, Illinois, here- 
by accepts said perer;r as a risr;ber, and ftf^recs to ^ixy _in accord- 
ance with the oonBtitxttion and la»s of tha American Patriots all 
the legal bTiefite promised in cerTi TTc ate Icnov^n iis "lo, "97 is- 
sued by the T-SLickers Erii-ioar:;t:;nt and l/ulu^l Anaociatitn of r'hicago, 
Illincis. In T^-itnegs of the acceptance of the t'^rns of this 
oontrfsct the offioert of the American Patriots and the menber 
have hereunto affixed their nurnes and the ee»al of the Araericsm 
'f'atrJotg has bean ^^ttachs-i trie. a&> . 

Aiserican T*atriGts, 
(Corporate 3eal.) by -. Q., Thorpo, ^resident, 

¥. H, Taylor, Recorder, 
"Friedrich Haurar, --'arib-sr." 

An officer of the apn«fiiant pcci*^ty testified in ef- 
fect that thia doctimont vfxs nrtde ?urin?t Dec-ir^ber, IvC'', 

In 19^^ "^riedrich Gauper was su^^^nfled frcn tt': order, 

and x-'nder date of April 1^:, 190'^', sipnsd the follo^onf docuraent, 

on •^'^h.ich he ??a8 duly ra instated as of that date: 

"Aaerican Patriots, Snrvnf;fleld, Illinois. 
Original Hchiller Council No, 630. 

Application for Psini-tater^i^^nt. April Ic, 1909. 

1, the undersirnad, a j^iiaiv-anded nenb^r of Council --o. 
650 of the A-nerican Patriots, holding 'Certificate 7o. 3l6-"6, ac- 
cev t j n^ all the ^ r.rovielcjnB of tha const Itiit ion of tha order now 
in force , do h^rel^y &Kk to ba rQinfi't'kteti and 'vf'arrant th at I am 
in r <^<i hoalth and not ertf-nred in any occiip=itlon proh3hited by 
the conetitution of the order and that axcept si n n & I 
have been free from all bodily injuries and ailrents cince the 

date of said certificate and aelc that this warranty be attached 
to ay original application for nerftberehip and that it bccowie one 



of the warranties upon s^hioh mj insurance in said order ie 
■based, h'^rsty w&iTing Inquiry by the cocl«ty in re»psct of 
the foregoing warranted declarations. 

I have eittachad duplicate of this v^^arranty to ray 'b'sns- 
fit cartifieate. 

Tritz Ga'uger. 

P. "P. Singer." 

April klf 1910, Triedrich Hauler di«d of tatanue, 

Tjeini!: then a prisoner in the ''ou!«e of Ccrr«ction of ^^hicago 

(eo7?p*only kno7/n rb th^ T^ridewell), tc which institution he had 

■b«*jn co«Trltted oy the "uniclpal rourt of tho rity of i^hicftf^o 

April 15, 1910. He had heen found JTuilty by said cotart of a 

violation of a.r ordinance of tho plaintiff against disorderly 

conduct and fined fifteen dollar? and ':o8ts. Default hHVing 

been mride in payment, it ^'as ordered by tha court - 

■That the iefcn-iant stand ooTr:itt©d to the '-rouee of 
Correction of said Oity of Chicairo until thtr v?hol3 of said debt 
and costs *?hall have been worked out k x * 5C » and that 

d'uring the iRspri£Gnr;'-;nt of said defendant in said Hcusse of Cor- 
rection h« t^, rsqi'ired tc Ial>ox unior the indirection of the Su- 
perintendent of said Ilouee nf Correction and accordlrift to the 
rifles of said House of Correction and the ?ailiff of t>; i? court 
is hereby conmana'^d to t?.kd tV2 b'-'.y of sal<l defendant '^Ted 
Qauger frcir: the bar of this court and d''?l/rer said body to the 
Fupsrintendent of eaid !ou&e of '■Jcrrectirnt and the Oup^rinton- 
dent of paid -Touse of Correction is hereby com:-nanded tc receive 
the of said defendant Fred "auger into his custody and con- 
fins said d€f>3r.dant in eaid 'fousa of Correct icn at labor froK 
and aft«r the deliver./ of said body tc taid rup'crinten.lent until 
euoh debt an-l ccrtta thall have b«en worked out x jt « x « or 
until said defendant shall have bssn aiEcbarp:sd accrdinc: to- 
la*, provided f>aid impriEonmsnt r;hall not exceod six r.ont^s." 

This order -.^as carried out and it -'as shile Triedrich 
Gaup-er sas in ousted.' undsr it t>-..i.t h? riled, as before stated. 

Proof »as rr.'-di? of the d?ath and payment demanded of 
the defendant f'^ociety, but the rial'??! -^as rejected. Fuit '^-as 
then brought. The defendant society plaaded the psrjoral itpue, 
also that the certificate -sfas avoided ■beca^'se the defendant 
suffered fror; the tetanus fror^ ?'"^. ich he died in oonsoquance 
of a cnicidal upon his o/n life in violation of thea 
constitution of the order and the contract; also that Ih r-sin- 
eta,te3ient of Cauger in the order ^as invalid b-:rcause of his af^e 

HXii yjf. 8©l-n-. 

-' xXdM^^'Bioo 

^b«n reinstated; also that tho suit waa not brourht in tiae, 
ani, finally, that the nald :F^iedrich Gauger had airreed for him- 
self tind hie beneficiary that the constitution and iR'-^a of the 
defendant society should be a part of his contract; that Section 
sixty-fiTO of ths constitution of the defendant order -<m.8 in 
force at the tiwe ha hecwne a raetnher and at ull times there- 
after, as follows: 

"Pac. 65. If a rre^'.ber dieo in cor sequence of a duel 
or by the hand? of .^t^stlce or by the practice of any pernicicue 
habit that obviously tende t'^ shorten life or by the us® of in- 
to>;icatlnf liqxiors or ;irr!p:9, or thronr-'r. or by the rlclation of 
any crirrinal l^w of rr^y ptate, or v.^1-\^ in Iha custody fvf an/ 
officer cf thq l^f . th^n in 2.II such cases the certificate of 
Tror?bsrs>'Tp e^lTT'? null en-^ void, hv-t the I'oarl of Directors, 
if ir itS! .iul'^-^ant the circv'^stance? atfJoHns: euch death war- 
rant It, nay at its option, without projudlce, pay any eutn not 
exceeding the full '^r^-'int thereof"; 

an^. that at th? time of his d^ath Ov^^vpr^T ^ao in the custody of 
an cfficsr of th* la's, »^ich r^n^vred th^ certificate void. 
The plea, T*hich -yras 1n.?,rt if trrially dra^'fn, also aesertod that the 
certific&ts i^%e vrld b»cav?e H'^'iT '??as addicted to the vse of 
intoxicating' liq-;ors to «>xcsss, ■s^hich tanded to ahortan his* 
life. Mavinr de^nied by rsrli cat long proTi'-u.sly filed the cub- 
stancs cf the ether pleas, to t'- is last pl^-^a the plaintiff filed 
a replication in vvhich she dei-ied "that Triedrich Gauger wao in 
the custody of an officer of the law i^heri he died", and then 
added the aesertion that aaid Friedrioh ^augeir did not dia frosj 
the use of intoxicating liqi:ors or nTv.f,n<, 

The cause -s^rs sub-r'itted to a Jury. After tha evidence 
(wVJLj»>, eptabliRhrjd the "octjon of the '''onstlt tion nurr.bfired 65 
'irA 8St out in '■-he plea before de?.cribi^d) v-^as all in, th^? de- 
fendant ^oved for a pcre^tory instruct? en. It ^as refuped, and 
the cause went to the Jury -fith inf-triictionc practically call- 
ing attention t'^ the defence of suicide only, although th® fol- 
lowing instruction was p-iv^jn at the inetinco of the def«».ndant: 

•^.^.-. V. 

"The court instructs the jury that the constitution, 
the by-la-sfs of the dafen^lant and th© riasibarship cert if irate is- 
sued to Friwdrich Hauf^sr by the Anerican TBtriots c.u»t be con- 
strued together as cna ocntr?iCt and the Inwe of th3 daf^nlant in 
force dsrinr the time said frledrich Gusher »a» st Meribar cf the 
defendant order were bindin~ on hlsi and or^ alsso binding en the 
beneficiary, ths plainti-^f in this ouit.* 

K^nvminsr th&t all other natters of dafence raiaed by 
th*} defendant were prTjerly decided ai^ainct it» ae indeed we 
think they ifere, we see no way in whic''^ tho proTicion of thi con- 
stitution that "if a iri^wber diee nan ^hile in the custody 
cf any officer of the lav k h « ihs certificate of r^ornberahip 
shall b? null and y-id* can ba ignored; nor can y^e see f^hy it is 
not apT-licable to this oasa* 

By virtxio of the certificate itself and ite anceptanee 
and th-:? appii-jation for reinytates-iSnt, t'sis provision c^ condition, 
««e thinV (as th« Judge rxiled) ^^as a oart cf th^ cr>ntract ^ade 
by the parti'?s. 

The answer r-^de by thr^ plaintiff tc IhiR defence In the 
court bt'iow "»f*s thiit tht proper constx-uction of the Psction -"-'uld 
not a&ke it applica>ls. i'ith this the trial Judge agreed, re- 
markioft that he di-1 not think "or ^hile in the cuetcdy of any 
officer of tho I&k" "Vould laean technically beinfr in the custody 
of an officer of ths lav, btscai^ny", as he said, "I can se?; 
whers one of th^ nost innocent and sober nen in the c^ untry nifht 
be in the cu3t?-'dy of an officer -i^id night die in his custody," 
^e do not fnllo^ this re-iacning. The stat2-n-3sit of thi; trial 
Judpte as t^- the possibiltty of a. , 2ntir';ly innoc3nt and sober maxi 
hi^inc in th^ custody of an officer of the lti%- ano thsrein dying, 
is of co»irBe true, an«l it ray sho^ the condition both a harsh and 
unjust on^ and an vm^'ise one for the daceaead to have entsred 
into; but ^e do not see horf ws can change the contract or aake 
another for the parties. 

' i »ajt 

In arpijxnent in this court the pl&lntiff says that the 
proTision should not prevent the recovery because there i6 no 
causative f^onnection b«tt*9en the cuetocijr «,n I the death. This 
ptater.snt of fact la true alno, hut it Ir not a part of the con- 
tract that there shoulf^ he such a causative connection. And wa 
know of nothing: *h4ch prohibited the parties from making the 
contract, w'^ich, coneiderin?? the Section of the Constitution in- 
volved, ^-e TRUBt hold that they did maXe, That "Pri'sdrich Csmger 
died while in the ru»ti^<*y of »n officer cf the law was xindeniable, 
"s^ think, an<* this should b»ve prevented recovery. The peremp- 
tory Inrtr'.jcticr ?-«>red frr by the defendant ehotild have been 
piven, Q^nd. -nt sutt reverse thie ju3fsscnt Rithout reaanding tlie 




\ D 



3iB5 - 13428. RAUGHR ▼. AV3iRICAH PATHIOTS. 

"Prl-udrlcfc Hatiger iied while in the cuEt-->dy of an of 
fleer of ths la.w. 

oh Tern:, 1S12, No 
594 - 18439 




TTTi; TIRES r!0?Tf50T.iD/T>:r5 vini^n 

^•?. R. ¥A0DO?7AT,0, .70 IK ;{. TURNKR / 
and "^. "0. IT-'I'TT:, ^n Apnf^al of / 
JPHK "-T. TURirSR, C-:4PLKS A. / 

'Tf-JrTOH and ?. D. •'/I'-nriK, 


\ / 

\ / 
\ / 

roiTRTT CT Pi [I '"Ann. 


OPI?TIOK 07 T!Ij3 '!'^TJi>T. 

Th"^ PT^^c-ipK.1 roritent ion of arjneiianta in this chbs is 
th8,t th? varlict en "hich the ^ul^t-^-ent atr,ackf?d by ths ap-'jeal 
was V.tinsd was clearly and .'aanifaeciy asrainst f^a ■'?3i,'^ht of the Tria judgmant vas rsindflrsd by the V ini^ipa"' Court of 
Chicago J%nusu:y ;;, l';iC. It -ao for ^45^8. 2? ana cc£ts. It 
*a8 in f;-.vor of "aivi- ^, Purk^st aiic^ against 'Charles A. "'incton, 
V?, r<. \'acdonald, John ;'. Turner and P. D. "'inick. *'f Vhose 
■''irscton, Turner and "irlr;}? have appealed to triis court, 

ih«? suit ^*.s or-'>y<T'h'': on "i pr'.:-is;?or.v note •rstjding: 

"'Thica/^o, Illiuoi5, ^^arch I6, XVOS. 
On or "bf^fore one year after data tVe under isi^rtsd, The 
T].r?£ "(-'nLT'lidaved ■''ning '''offii):i':y , pr-'iines to paj tc the order of 
Calvin ^. Pur^cet the aum of IPour Thousand r^ollars (#4r,'>-\oc) , 
with int'-r^st rror. dut-^ a.t tho i-ate of ^ifht per cent, per an- 
num, until oaid, for value received. This not« Tsay be extsndad 
if deeired lor a Tui'ther rivriofi cl' two y^sars upon prayment of 

Th'i Urea Con&oli'-:.at3d " ininp: Conip;my, 
P.y John !1 . Tur n 9 r , President, 
'■ . n . Vac do d , r s c r e t ar / , 
(SEAL C. A. -^innton, 

The Ut^.f. ncnscliiat'jd ,'/. K. i:acdonaid, 

■^'ininfT Co!rpany.) Johr^ il. Ttjrner , 

P. P. Hinick." 

The nots --as giver. lafjr'S the fji-. '^^tut'5 of Illinois 
kftown as the JJegotiacls InstDir.'jrit Taw, iiprrsved June b', 19^7, 


^t*8x - .',: 



went into effect, noneiasrinc: the wording of the nota, KsctAon 
iA of that Act, were it ftc-'ilical^l'!, laight hava detcrtiiined the 
frir;a fjicio relation of t>;e appellants to the paper to \>a that 
of endori-ere only; but ther s Ip. no doulat that before ty.£.t stat- 
ute T;a8 enaclRfi they rare. en the face of the in6trua;::xit i-wself, 
either prlncJ.pR.1 'rakers or RUi'Btiee. Tht t^vifUnce, j-'ric^. in 
that rftsr«c* is not conflicting, shoftu that th-3> actually tigned 
as sureties, n.rA perhaps vithot.t ar-y fvrthei* evidtpnce the fact 
that the hci.' of the note d«i8c;riT;ea the Ures Consolidated ¥ining 
'^ompany Rlon«: as the t^rorcisor woula have fixed thfeii' rclution 
ae anretJer, raf'.'^r tv^.-in tirincipala. Thir. , however, is ir.-'^iu.ter- 
ial. Thn Tree '^nrisolid&ted »''ininK Cosipany waa not rervetl in 
this 013"?, ^v;d .vhll'3 .iudnrient '/fa:5 rendered ae well ug^iinet •' , R, 
vaod' a*ld ar th^ other ir-ilviduiil dof'jr.d.-ir.ts, hu hao not joinad 
in the appsal. 

The conflict ft evidence 1? rot on Lhs ch^rictsr In 
■s'-'.lch the aprc-ilar'tc i^nd ''acdr ns.!':.' tig-ned, \Mt on th^ ccndi- 
tifjnfs on '^.hic>; th'; ir imdertidcing iie a- SriWrxs. rtxti to 'ceo ui-- ef- 
fective in fir.yor :>f the pay;?e, BtirkrJt, and vsa^thsr the c.^ndxtion, 
if euch thej-e v-e-e, tjstvre.nj thornier Lv as >•.*£? }cno,7n to "^uri^yi. 
The o-ppaiiantft sivj' chat their •'ndirtaV. ins.- to baci^^'j s^rQ.i&a for 
thr^ del;t cf ?h' rrcB '^onr.'-'l irJatad '^iaing" rompany v>4i3 only to 
beco.:."^ VHiid yft'l e-f ''■not. l7 3 if -.•■11 th?; iirectora of .hat -CiTipany 
signed the note, nn'^ thnt thi& condlt.irn '--'as '-.ade knonn to 
^nd -yMs understood "by the p'li^ii-tiff ; th'^v '".h^-'X-i *ere nine direc- 
tors, cf ••..hoR only f < ur planed the ncte, ann iViat, th'Sr^forf?, 
Purk-'it shcul) net he a.I3o"-5^r! to rnnover Hf'aiiist th,'aa four. 

It is quit'' trne th^-t thr^r''; is v^ry distinct xest ijnony 
of Eoyeral -f--ltnf^ss?.s tc tho r-cndit^'^n ri?^!ne.di and to kno- l-^dfi-'i of 
it 'by Buriist. But rcj Jo not thinlc it i? a c^^eg in v'hic*^ cq 

;>larfon .^oollta o^at *«e 

.an f»l9£l Amti 

s jBaiifttv 

should override the decifion of ths jur/ on the? quostion vmeiv-fjr 

th£*t tOBtimony vr tha.. of Turket, who taatiried onr-hatically 

thjku hti agr*3t:d to n'af,B ana did ir;fc!ke a lo-iti «»•> the Company of 

the a/vrount radi.-i icned in th.^^ not*i, provided that hv souli bav^ th« 

tecuritv aff^rdiJil by the perscrtal obligation of e ct.3 of x^e 

directors. "Thore ipa.b never anyt- irtf paid", be tectifior, 

"al^out &11 t^e dirfec'ors sipnin? - not one Einple -vf-rd said to 

TBC abovt a require-'tent o-f all t>ie cirectors zifr.ivfr that rictr-.* 

The coTi-f*lir1. Ic ir '•iO'^'ncilB.VlG. Put it "lipiht well he 

th^at the pers'^ns tigntnf: expected t'-^^^t f*ll of tie cslrectcrs 

would sien without ite I'trin*/ a, condition mady knt-r to or i^>-- 

hy them 
p^^cted hy -urxat . Pvch «in exrectution woul'; not inva-Iidat?? in 


Pur^^'^t's bande the c-ignaturee that ^.ove sjotvf.Ily -uadB. *t all 
evontij, we are contprt to let t'*--^ d^jcitnon re- eln ns l^o .Ivry 
»'.;;ide it. Th':?y ^'ere tjuly instructed XtsA they thould find ■'"or 
th« diif^ if th^-y helif^ved frr^v thy ^ifvidenoo t':^t th'J ;!ef2nl- 
aittn pjp-ned the note upon the f-on-'sition th-it th?Y should not h'> 
perBonfelly obligated unloee all iha rUriJe-.or-- sii!:rned, ■ir--'. that 
this condition v^ets undersLood "oy th'S plaintiff. Thoy di-l not so 

The ap-oftl"; antp r-f,intHin th??.t th'? t'^etir^ony f-^r th? d3- 
fendantc not only prt-Tonc^-^r&te? in f^.n pviTihcr of 'j'itnjjsfjfs, hut 
f'-at th<^ tpRtip^cny '^■^ t^'Sir "■itrfJSFes is rorrohorated •m.'? thst of 
the nlainti^^f 'r not, f'z ■'o not &?iert tc f^ip. r>r"oc?ii j rin. Tt 
Tfcrrz to UP a ^nj^tter of 9.rru'^?^t •*'o ^nd infer':<"re 'V^y t.hs 
jury t^at •♦>!« r jrcrr>p,tarces =it.t?Tic5inp the ^laklnrr cf *-'^:' note, 
ite df^llvery t" end a-oeplan^e hy the plHinl: iff , hi p "'.t/'cin.- tho 
loan without r'-nnirinf an atteirpt to sscur? th-,* l=iic;<inr stgna- 
tnres, the vv&ni^-ovf ^!^tif i.caticn "f th" loan "S-S .Ter;:ri=?d hy 

Vr , I'lacdrn'ild fr-^r. r^r* . ", r, p.iirk^ff at a r^e'^tinr cf the direc- 
tors at Ahich all tho anpellanta were present, vh^n they knew 


that T;urkst had th£ note and had d«3i7er';)d the money, and the 
eu'pBequent in&otivj ty in rerudiatinr cr d'sr.yin.ft liability for a 
lonr tiTTie t>6reaft,er, wrere rrrro'boratJ ve tc f-ome ext'^nt of tha 
plBintlff " tffrt irjony . Ilov Tqt they ware no corro"bcrat.iYe or 
Fhcwld "be ref'^Tdttd as con'-rollinr., war, for the jury nnd not for 
us *.o say, 

Thrt only other p«.int m-tde "by the appellantp afrainet 
th'! judrraent is t>s«.*; it incluJae mtiroat fron date nt 'As l^gal 
rats of fiv* nT cent, Th«ir contention la th'Jt the rate ro- 
s'jrv-sd in th'^ n^te w •» usurinua, and that althouf^h h. oorr,ora- 
tion coull no: t'ike advantage of thft forfsiture of the antxre in- 
tarost prcvictad l..y the usury lavs of thn Stat?* as |» penalty, but 
must be h2l>« iii*>l-:- I'or lapial intorsat la 'a-idition to the 
principal, yet individual sureties en a promissory note executed 
by a coiporution may plead and tuka adve,ntag3 of si^ch forfeit- 

Thfc Jury f.-ore iriCvr;.ct&d tc t>.i& *;ff3Ci by the "ourt 
at th« ineti^ncti of tha dd'onuAnts, o\..t '»(-&rJ6c^- ch« instruc- 
tion, *'e thinx l.ri3 iafo*v.i-action «.■&£ err-jnecus and the jury 
rifht, and that tUe cppellanLe cnnnot taky advanta^j*: of th*? dis- 
oh^idience by th« Jur./ of an irronjjous insti-'iction rivon n?; their 

Corportitions are ■jjxpreesiy tjy the statuts of Illinois 
forbidden to int^rposs the d«ftji-ice oi u.:ury, but carinct nsv«2?- 
thelsso b« held liable for i?..ort* t,han tht; Lrif;i.i rtcts. 

Union "«ation&l Ecinlc vB.Louirvills, ''.^o:v Albany 
Sc ;;v.icago R.-a.ii?;«,y Ccrcpan^', 14 i.- 111. i^OO'. 

In other ^'t-itsc -vith &ir.ular scatutee ruretist ire 
no leBa forbidueti the, aei'uri&e cf uuury than th« c^rp^iration 
it&elf, AtiCi arci thuo piu.ceu. ia tha £ii:.-o ^ii-Uation as £ 

l^eeae r. lirownell, 5S' :'•(« J, L. 2V^~y, 
Rofea V. >u-.t.eT-f i.^ld, 53 Is. Y. , ;'65i 
Smitii V. Alvord, 6^ ^arc. , 41^?; 
Ftevmrt y. ^rstmhall, 74 X. if., b>i 
Jnion ^lote Ky. , v. ".'he«lsr, 6o 1^. i - , Li2. 
In thrt a'baonne of any Jid.vaiiicat-' rn on ths rsu, ^or Tdj 
our f-upr»jmo Tourt w's are inclinsd to fellow these dficieiana. 

The jufirrn-^nt of th^ '.'unlolpal "ourt of "hicagn i? 
aff irned. 


bciii^ »di n 

a Term, 1912, Ho.' 
025 - 18565 

«iSTTBlI, dcinr "businees as ) / 

Appellant a, Y 

a corporation, / 

Appellee. / 

184I.A. 500 

APPgA^: nao^ MUwiriPAT. noURT 





\ / 


This If. a suit "brou<Tht in the «.'unicipal '"^ourt to re- 
cOTer coHsnieeions alleged to be iue to th« fir^^ of Rounas & '^st- 
tsn, real estate brok-^rB, hereinafter called plaint iff e, for 
negotiating a la&se tc one JameB ^. SoenkKsn for the Victoria 
^otdl CoTHpany, hereinafter callad dsfendant. Ths case frtxB triad 
by th3 court */ithout u. jury, *'hc found the ieuuss for th3 tisfenti- 
jiHt and rendered .^udnnont apainut the plaintiffs. 

After careful conr i isrsAtior of fr.o evlderjce'se have 
concluded t'-at the jud-n^nt mui-t h^; r*voraed ana the cav. ro ro- 
rsanded for another trial, "•'a think it ip rrwrifest th£..t the 
ri'i'urt arrived at it^ conclurlcn ';ither t>.roi?fh a mii..arrrehi^ntion 
of the *eifr^ t cf th<5 cvidsnce adduce^, cr of the law aprljcahle 
to the facta. As there rtusi ba anothsr trial, »9 .ill refer to 
the Qvidencs briefly. 

^ In February, 19^9, the pTaintiffe loarrted that the da- 

fendant had apace advertised for rent, a.nd having* no^e -oarticB 
*-ho wished mich sspace, frot into com^-jurifat ion vvith ths offic-a of 
defendant. A telephone convorsation was had between 'T^ Puffer, 

\ the president of the dsfondant c^onprxny^ i^-nd a ''r. ?!5.cok>-ell, one 

/> /^, *^ f 

-A. asenis 

vi.t;^f • sr>T?«nT .ot 

89 Lmt 

cf the salesmen for the plaintiffs, "r. Puff r Informed Stock- 
•i'ell as to space and terna, and was told "by ?toekwell that plain- 
tiffs had a party tfhcm they th-m^jht they n^.it^ht ha able to inter- 
est. Jrhortly afterwards Ptockwall vitited defendant' e property 
with a prospect iva tenant, and was shosvn the eame by a ''r. Hunt- 
lay, one of the officers of tha defendant ccnpany, who told 
f?tockwoll that as r. Puffer was sink, he (ffuntley) would nepoti- 
ate the Tiatter, StecVwell introduced hiweolf by prgsentSnp to 
Kuntloy on« of the husin'^'SB cards of the plaintiffs, at the Earos 
tine inforrfinR >runtley that he was connected <ith this real es- 
tate firns and that the party ^-ith him '^ac a prospective tenant 
for the epace that the defendant had for r«nt. The/ 4'ere shov/n 
through the sp&os, and there ??hb considerable talk aboiit terns 
and price. During the diecussion Huntley asked rtockJ'ell as to 
what *culd be the amount of hii.: coBr.-^icsion, to hich Btocrfeell 
replied hat thsy would charprs the rsg-iilar Heal Kstate Board 
rat36, infor'^inp' hiBs as to -?hat thsy «'ere, whor :upon ITuntlcy re- 
plied th&t the defendant coaspany exp*:cted to ray a cor-nission 
and that the aT.Gi<nt ^as all rir-ht. The n:?xt di^y rtonkwell sub- 
mitted a crf^poEit ion, and othar conversations ^'ere h-id ■ ith raf- 
orance to th** lease. 

About this tlEC- a "r. Johnson, a tr.orib-^r of plaintiff's 
firr, vi£-^ted the pre^'lGea f-iir ona Jam^s '^. ?o-snkEen, who was 
an old client of plaintiffs firr., havinp- n?;s?' listed a number of 
l-casss for hirs. He Borons to hav5 besn the particular client of 
¥t , J'r-hnson, «ith «'how h..» had a r^ocial imd buBin-sae accjiiaintancs 
for oaveral years prior to this. Johnsscn and Soenksen were 8ho-*fn 
throuf^h the prsi-ieoB by the secretary of tho defendant corr.pany. 
Johneon callf»d the next day and had a conversation >;ith 'r. Puf- 
fer, to fihojc hii guve one of plamtiffe business cards, at the 

Ml r "^ f' : "• 'y > f '^ > >t ■ •-' ' T o^ . 

-■^■i orin. 

' C3 

. utnl ML.: 
aa- isrxil h^jM 

6b tx»r 
10 •▼a:^^ 

same tine informinpr him that he had already vieited the praniBeB 
I 9ith Poenksen. Puffer named a fitrure at w Ic^ they v/sre -«lllin^ 
tc leaoe the prenisoe, -^'hich Poankeen thought was too nuch. 
Puffer informed Johnson that he *aB poing tc, leave the city 
that SYeningi *hat th'i defendant company had a deal en A'hich they 
expectod tc clos© thut afternoon, hut in the event thic -as not 
censu»r«ated thsy wvld nee Johnson and take up tha mat tar cf 
leasing to Soenksen "fthe'i he (Puffer) returned. Johneon th-^n 
Informod Puffer that he •^oul'1 continue ?rith noenkcen and await 
Puffer's return. 

Shortly after t^at J?oenkeen received an injury Thich 
dleahlQd hlw to the extant that he was unatls to attend to any 
bu6ln388 for ahout four vsoks and was confined to hie room. 
IHrring this time Johnson had frequent conversations v^lth hira 
and diocuased th*3 matter of the leasing of the prerirs^E of th«J 
defendant. After Puffer returned t^ the city, and *-hile rosnk- 
•en was still confined to his room, ?o*nksen ^vac nall'^d ov5r the 
telephone by a Vr, l-c'^-^'anus, '^hc vae un'<nown to ?03nk?,cn, ^'c^^^aaus 
stated that he had a prcpoE\tion •'hich he thour'ht would interest 
hiffi, and thb.t it .-aa v.ith reference tc tho 6pa.ce for rant of the 
defendant company. Coenkeen tola Y im thut he '^.ae already in- 
forrricd as tc that nutter hut wan net BatitfiGci v.ith the price, 
KeVanug then stated thut he ^as the exclueivq a^ent and had a 
price ?'hich would interest him, anii fnade an appointr:;ent to mset 
hiia at the '3ef sndant • ?. office t>at afternocn. The ?xp| ointment 
«|&s irept an-l FceSkeen met ''cT^anus at t^e defenda^it ♦ s hiiildinr, 
an;^ tfter notne nepotiationE -i lease vas coneianrsated, ^r, Huntley 
heinp present and p^rt icipat ).np: in the iriatt-^r, and 'r, 'cVanue 
at that time Et^itinc- that he .-ȣ? the excluiiive r^r-'nt of the 
prerilses. Soenkson informed c'^Hnus In the nrsBence of 'Tuntley 
that he had prevloTisly been shO';m the premisee by -r. Tohnscn 

tic hr^ »rf iwi^.S Bid ^ninsTolnl BwUi) 

''«<<# (|M^i.n«T9 San. 
©80.(9 oi feoiosffxs 

yf sriif l>eX<f«iili^ 
.ii bam ^mir 

Ma»* Koiifw »nl*fo 

♦ffoil {tj> 


of the plaintiff's firni. 

Soenktcr. teetlfied that fro^n ths time the pramiaes 
were first ehoirn hia: hj vr. Johnson to the time the lease »rao 
sifpied he had net a"bandoTi8d ths i?itention of leasing the premlsee; 
that th3 location r-ac aatiafact-ory <md what he ranted; that the 
only icatter in doutt trao the qusetlon of pries, and that ho always 
expected as coon ao he recovered from his injury to maSca a satic- 
factory arrans^errent with ''r, Johnson tie to the rental price. 

^^ile there nay "be sowe nontroTsroy upon eom-3 partis of 
the foregoing statement of fact, yst ite subetantial correctness 
is supported by tha preponderance of the eridence. 

It ie '^ell astrAblished by many cases th&t if a real 
estate broker produces h custoTRer and earriso throufrh the nep-o- 
ti&tlone to their con8ura?nation he Ie "ir.titled to his coistrassion, 
and aleo that -shere he first produces a cuetofasr and continues 
the negotiations he ''■ill !?<? cont^ldered as the T-.rccurinr. cause of 
the final consuBr-ation '^'if^ puch cust-cnsr, although ths negotia- 
tions s:ay b& completed b;/ the principal or throuf^h another patxty. 
Henry v. <^tewart, 1B5 111. 44H; Rigd'^n v. ^^or^, 226 111. 3^i2; 
nafner v. Perron, lo^ 111. 3'^2. Anplyinf thic rnli- to the facts 
herein, -we are una'bl'^ to a^ree rith tho conclurion of th" i.rlal 
Court in his holdJnf^ thnt lYi plaintiffs , through Jo^nss-'n, v;ere 
not th^e -procurinr nates of. the leasing of dsfsrr^ant' s presnses 
to Soenksen. 

Upon the trial plaint if fs scucV^t to introduce conversa- 
tions "beti^een Poenksen and Johnson rich t-'Ok place at the time 
Soenkoen wac confined to his roofs. It iv. clalrrjed thai tho pur- 
pose of thiu ^'BLn to she* that it -^aB throup-h tho effort p. of John- 
Eon that Toenkscn continuing: in his dij>pcsition *,oward8 
leasing the prsmiBes, and also as tsndlnft to provo that Soenkaen 
had not abh-ndoned this idea, ?h« court, ho/.evsr, rafuftod !>o al- 

-?'* a'^'^tt'si-aX'Jr 6 

■■ ^" 

fo^ f}?.'* 


2«rQi^rfp g">'^» ^nl'r^/n [»kt$ 


.i<fo #on bM.i 

lo-R ths introduction of this. NBither counsel has favr-red us 
■«-ith any cititlona of dcciulont touching upon th?} Jidmiasi'bll ity 
of such evidence, but it would eaosi that if, ae the covurt hsld, 
it v?as proper for Soankeen to taetify that ha had not abandoned 
tho idea, it would be proper to nho* what -feae said "by Johneon and 
hinj concerning the proposed leaelnf?, both as teriviing to ccrrobo- 
rato that stat^jr^ent an<i also that the court mlpht dotennino thi^re- 
frcr'. trhethcr or not th* plaintiffs were the procuring cause. 

^9 arc of opinion it ould be in accord >vith lust ice 
that thare shoulii be a new trial, and therefore, for the : saeona 
above oet fort^. , the judfrment *ill be reversed and tha cause 

RSV^^SSD Aim RSl?A:?t)ST>. 


-enifn: ... Iftqotq BMW 4i 

^*3£> 9VI>1ft 

388 - 18433 

184I.A. 505 

Appeal from 

for the use of HENPY J. SCHAEFER, ) 

Ap^iellee, S 

i ) 

V8. t ) Municipal Court 

I ) of Chicago. 

GEORGE wiRTS ct al . / J 

On appeal of / ) 


Appellants. ) 

■ / 


This is an appeal from a judgment against appellants 
in a suit on a guardian's bond filed in the Probate Court of 
Cook County. -..__-—- ^ 

In 1907 George Wirtz was appointed guardian in the 
Probate Court of Cook County for Henry J. Schaefer, a minor, 
and filed hie bond for the faithful performance of hia duties, 
with the appellants, Joseph Thome and John Doornek, as sureties. 
Wirtz, ae guardian, subsequently proceeded to sell an imdivided 
one-fourth interest in certain property located in Chicago, and 
received the s\im of S3, 333 as the share belonging to his ward. 
In 1910 Schaefer attained his majority, and in October, 1911, 
Wirtz, ae guardian, filed his final account in the Probate Court, 
which was approved. Said account showed a balance in his hands 
as guardian, belonging to the said Henry J. Schaefer, of the sxjm 
of $1,900. Upon hie failure to turn over the said money to his 
ward this suit was started against him and his sureties. The 
defendants having been duly served with sijmmons, were subsequent- 
ly defaulted for failure to enter an appearance, and judgment was 
entered against them for *12,000 in debt and tl,900 in damages, 
to be satisfied upon the payment of the damages with costs and 
interest. From this judgment the appellants, Joseph Thome and 
John Doornek, have appealed. 

Sci^ai - 88S 

'^.lOJflJJI 'iO aTAT8 aHT '50 aJ«T031 
■'?aAH03 .L YHII3H lo ©8u 6ri:f lol 

lo Is- - 

TFJO'.' 2HT ^O M0IWI10 3HT aaflSVUaa YJ3mU8oM 30IT8UL .RM 


■•cm^i-.j,^ s. :..'■. J. ifciC^jv^a .iis it -;i.w. 

'"^ '■ ■'^'' ^ '^ ''.1 ni belli bffod s'rTsitrrBus £ no Jiue £ at 

.X^nuoO jIooO 

cdJ iii -ijiiL-i^w^ - J11J.U .,'^ ^>:n s^iiW 9J11O90 ^OQL al . 

^rxoftira « ^Tcalsfido^ .L YinsH tol Y^nuoO iIooO lo iruoO ^tBdcn'i 

^B^ituh Bid lo sonsimolio^ IiflrWifil sd^ lol baod sid bslil baB 

.'^sid-STua B8 ^>f9nTooQ ndoL bns aaiodT ilqsaoL ^BtiisiLeqqB 9df dtlw 

-]"'/: f'j a« Ilea od" bebsoooiq YJ^^J'^oupsecii/a ^niLaibifias a* ^aJ-iif 

>. c .^ -oiriD nl bB^BOol xtzeqtnq ni£d-T»o ni tzeisint dnuol-sno 

• bifiw eirl o? anigrrolsd siade aii- as 5S£^Sf lo ttu» ndi bevisosi 

^IIGI ^TScfo;^oO ai bns <y*iiotfifft sld b9atBti-B T9l8«£lo8 0X91 al 

J' :,'-)'^ 9;fecfOT<T srii' nx Jrtyooofi iBnil slci fcalil ^njjibrBua aa jStiiW 

xi aid ni ©on£j[£cf fi bewods Jrujooos bi«8 .bdvoaqq* aaw doidw 

itua adi^ lo ^TblaflrxoS .L ythsH brsa sdj ot snianolacf ^OBlbiaus as 

id o(r Y^noaj bisa s;iJ^ aavo arui oi Biultul aid cioqU .008^1$ lo 

»dT .aai^raiuB aid ban mid d^aniBSB byJifl-Js 8»w Hub aidi bnsw 

-^J-.iaup&ec'jje sisw jSaoixuitt/a d.^iw bavise ^Jti^Jo need s«iv«^ a^fiBbnslob 

e3v.- J^namgbut baB ^9oaBtB9qqB cib zsias oa wtuIiBl lol ba^Iuslab yl 

,c-qG.:..?,i^ ..:;: "'OS,!^ briB (fdat nx OOOtSI^ lol rasd^ Janijeaxj baio^aft 

BSgBmB;, ■ -■ ' " -^ :fn9nnc«q 0^^ noqu boilciJBa ad o^ 

-:,-fT rr-.r. T. fl., , i-n[!9fligjjy^ aid;f r.oi? .^faa-iajal 

.belaaqqB aved ifemooQ ndoL 


Two points are presented as grounds for reversal. The 
first is the claim that the suit is not brought in the naine of 
the people, as is required by section 11, chapter 64, Illinois 
Statutes on Guardian and Ward. This section is as follows: 
"Bonds may be put in suit in the name of the people of the State 
of Illinois, to the use of any person entitled to recover on a 
breach thereof, and damages assessed and proceedings had there- 
on, as in other cases of penal bonds." 

The answer to this claim is that it is evidently based 
upon a misapprehension of the facts, for an inspection of the 
record makes it evident that the suit was commended in the name 
of the people an revquired by the statute. The plaintiff .-^imed 
in the praecipe is "People of the ?tate of Illinois, for use of 
Henry J. Schaefer," and the plaintiff is so named in the state- 
ment of claim and other papers filed in the case. The only 
ground for appellants' assertion is that in the summons the de- 
fendants are called upon to answer unto "Henry J. Schaefer"; but 
in view of all the other doctunents, it cannot be said that this 
irregularity alone stamps the suit as brought contrary to the 
provisions of the statute. 

The second point urged is that there was no affidavit 
filed by plaintiff with the statement of claim, and it is said 
that such an affidavit is required under Rule 16 of the Mimici- 
pal Court, of which rule the Appellate Court is required to take 
judicial notice, under section 30 of the Municipal Court act. 

It is a sufficient answer to thia contention to refer 
to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sixby v. Chicago 
City Ry. Co., 260 111. 478, where it is held that section 30 afore- 
said is unconstitutional; and consequently this court cannot take 
judicial notice of the Municipal Court rule v/hich it is claimed 

was violated. 

These being the only points presented to us, neither of 
which has merit, the julgi/ient will be affirmed. 



sdT .Ifleiijvsi rol abniJOTg 8fi csi'nsasTq »t» einioq owT 

.laa orl* at (tdgtroicf toa ei Hub 9d:i indi ibImLo ^di ax J"oiil 

aiOiXilXI 1^3 "led'qBrfo ^iL aolto^a ^C batlupei si bb ^©Xqoeq 9d;f 

:8woIIol BJB 8i noii^oea eiriT .bi*W Ektb a«i:iyiBi/0 no ad^futjaJ^ 

a^jBl"S »ri -osq sri;^ lo sofln sdi at tlua nl Juq ^d yBm siinoa" 

« no ittvjosi oJ t9l.tJ:;fa9 noaiaq yab ^o 9bu srlJ oif ^aioniXXI lo 

-^rsdt bBd e^ni.h990ozq baa baaaseaB esssau' xoanedi^ doB9t<i 

".abnocf iBftsq lo ^j^:.ii;o i9rf;to ni a& ^ao 
}jirj:^a vi Jr.'c.-:.x /9 &! J^x si .itieXo 8icl;f o:f levfanjs sriT 

9j1 ' -qani as loJ ^,stox'^ To nolatiarfoiqqBaim b noqu 

oitLBit . "-vT jTu irO&noiftfiioo Bfiw ;fxu8 OiiJ j£,iii taobive SI aa^fBin biooei 

bttn^i \'itiatsZ<i sdT .9tsjtstfi ibdt yd Jbeaiupat ujs dXqoeq arf^ lo 

xo o:.^ Tvl tSJ^ 'o 'j^tsifo ©dj- lo ©XqaeT" at aqiosBiq niS at 

■idj ni L'.;v=j:iii o3 at lli^niaXq »di bas ''^T©loado8 .L YrnaH 

^r^ao 9riT .eaao 9C[# nl baXil arr»q«q toxIjo bna aiiBXo lo tatisx 

-Qb 9ii^ Baommssn »di ni isdi %t noi^ea«« 'atnfi IXeqqB ?:ol 601/013 

-cf i^ielasiloS .!. yi«»H* oiau tswafUi o^ noqu bafXeo via Btaaba^l 

■ ' " 'j fcisB 9cf Jortflflo itJt ^B^ffiemuocft icftrfJo »riw XX« lo walv ni 

•3- -tiJifnoc */lguoirf afi *iU8 adf aqjUBua aaof* x'J'iiBXjJSfti^i 

.'■i'!jj"£;:rs odS lo anoiBivoTq 
v' . v*>;) j^iw -i i.'i^" .> ^j'.txoq biioo«a ©if" 

.UBS tt .'J 1-:'.. . ivfifiio -'O tfrtoasJB^ts erft d^iw llx^nriBx y\j wt,Lj,'i 

-ioifii/M ^-^ "• - ' ' ' •' ----- ba^iupsn si ;fivjsfcxllB aa doua i-sriJ" 

* -~ v-i :.;.-. . ..-.iXsqqA 9di ©lai rfoirif? lo ^;fx0oO Xaq 

.o..t o'Ti/oO XflqioLii; V. -t lo OS noicfofts xeiHtt; ^aoi'to-' '"-!:•:' ib'.'t 

-j.9l»T o^ nroi*ns3"aoo Piri:f oj iswsnJi *«eioi11i/e s ex 3i 

^aBOx.'IO ../ Yrfxx?? rri ^xuoO ins^rqu'^' 9di lo no^xaiosb :tn©0'9'i tdi ot 

;vlB OS nolJcBS &Bdi br©ri ai ti 0TOdw 48^* .tXI 08S ,.oO .yH xttO 

^"^iiJ J-oar- ^-•^o .qirfj- yr;trT©;/p9Brtoo bns iXB!ioi*u.ti Jafxoonu si bias 

^ruoO Laqt'^--''" ■' ^ ■ '^■- 'cotton Lstoibul 

■rA.„ .vl,. 

Ic ir oJ- boi^tTaaexq a^nioq ^Lao adt gniocf saadT 

.bofinxlls oof XXiw .tne-tisbx/l; ©dJ ti-i-xam asxl doldfj 


'''''r ^ozs. . 

308 - iB77i ^ 

IBAD0R2 8. EiyCO, 

r«f«nc:&nt in £rror« 



PI aim iff in Ertof. 

184I.A. 506 





im. 2S2zirAnc juettoe smith dklivxrec ths opisioh or Tin comt. 



On Junj IZ, ISli:, a Judfnendiit. by confaeaicn wae 
«nt«r«<i in th« Itunicipai Court of Chicago on a. «srrr,nt of r-l- 
torneiy jiuthoriaing t)a« oon/eeaion of •* judf*.«sint in f^vor of 
d«fttoa&nt in arror ana af:eic»t plaintiff in arror, 

Augtiut aS, 1312, pliintiff ia ^ivrar cx^s&mad Liw 
notion Xo act J»,»i<i9 is*aa vaoatQ ths judgat^xst aad for isavrf to 
ddfi^na .^fr.&inat tb« ..ciion, Thie a/jtion ^ac founa-ad upoti a 

pdtitison «>-i:i,.orv«d by the affiiiavit of ;iaintiff in acror, Tos 
motion to vac'jtd tis* jiicig-ai-^nt an«i for iiS'^^v«j to d9f-ci!K<S «»« dssniad. 
by thti court a»d plaintiff in error bringa th* judgfr.ant or or^i'^r 
of Qourt, a«nyinf iiiir. th§ right to pi«»a(l to ths snaritss, bafors 
tiii© court for rsvia*. 

Tha pi'i^intiff in «rror, in hie pat. ii. ion to th^ 
■^unicip&I Court, »uts u;- iiiri ^ i^iXli prccsiridirif si; r^iaiutittf 
ii"! th» jU'JigifceRt, Gn<i tfe«t they 'wisr^ h-sid K'i »ny kno^-isdra 
of th« .iaiRtiff in «rror; that at tha tiis^ of th-3 axacution 
jand tha d«IiV4ry of the ju.;i£ff;j*Tt nets to C, 2, Huxl«y ana at the 
ti»e of tiia pratoncUil trarafar tfcar^sof to Ii;-iciore B., ds- 
f«na»nt in srror, Hhii Huxi^y ss^^fc- th^ i*f;sGt for i -fsrisiiiiit in 
arror, «%n.:ji thfct all ths aquitiaja t^nd ci^f-di-ia*6 of ti^.» Baker of 
tr»« noid isxlet agMinst thi asfdnaisnt in arror j:- a tna i-riacip?^! 

a olio* 



•«oa •0« 


of hie a^ent, ana that a«f«ofli*-i)t in arror wafc r.ot at %hst lia-.^ 
h» rse«iv«a K&ia n<jt« •+» lrmoc«nt purrci'.a^^er th-irntot for UiA.ivi'9 
t«forts (ifts-turily, but thtit he K*li kn«w of t^nn «».« y j^artj- to 
th« frttud rsr.c.«trated npon thsj pi^^lntlff in «»rror la tti» ob- 
tftiaing of %hv not*i tn«it th* ri*iritiff In "jrror t^cl a valid 
and R-.«rltariou£ iiifdaed to t^o '^^<otion of thsa d^fnadiurit ia vtvor 
upon »Hid nota, n&r.'.<«I]r, th.'jt t)i3 n«td *«» o>>t*xlndcl by ff.-;nifi stnd - 
Kslarw.rr 3an4nt!*tlcn of th» di»f«na»,ni m srror ?/nd M® j»,ge0t 
Iluxl<»y^ t'.j srd in th.-.t behalf, snd wae '^fcoHy without oontsiciiS ra- 
tion atia troloi thet tb« ftcl* on -s'hlch tha Judgaistit «.>« afttdxed 
*a« givten jjs a part rurch'i»« pric® for a thlta Bt«»B:<»r -uitoaso- 
blia c.*n*Q b> 1«f«at1ant In tirror, which »•»« eold Ifcy C. £. F^ixiey 
to tba rl:»^latlff In trror *« th« »p«rt of d«f9ndAnt in «rror or 
April '■^ f l',j(liJ, upon th« <«rrf stntatloi) f^n^ axpr«8« ««.rr?it.nty thai 
th« autc»tobil« W8S in ,;,-eri act ranning ordur isnc? In firet-clH&s 
repair -jnd GOR^itlon fur ift;».ociAt3 Ufei^i ihnx, iha r*rr»»»«i3ta tic-i::s 
of tbtt Gi«»f»nd,ant in «rror, tnrough hi^ ajTant ImrJisiiy^ i's»,r&.xaing 
th« autoiBOblle wtjr* fsiss, snd. thst the il^fsjiiaant in error di- 
r«Ct«a thin, to b:» /jada fcy his ■j?iar;t ilusiuy, and both tha OiJ- 
foixiiant ia arror ^agcI ui« .7^«nt kn#^ tJ^isje- to L;* f^tlaa, thaV tb^ 
automobii j«, ifictead «f b«lnp: !« perr'jjot running- ordei- sn<; 4k 
f Ifat-cii's;* r^\-i»ir snd conditlorj for l!?-#«di-;- ts \j.8«, «-.s.e ■*i'^oiiy 
out of ■£•;» air, dafsictivai!, coula not ts'S ©r®r?tt«d istfsd 's^oulti Kot 
run, t3>;t iha cylir.fiar ?au' cxi-ah.&d t^nd th« valves out of -;djuet.- 

Th« patitton furih-^r et&ist* tl:;, t at the ti,T« af the 
©aid of th* autojnobiis to / Ifcir.tiff Ik 'UTTov, thd clr*intif f In 
»rror .-iAts not f*sHiiliar «ith ^i,u^o»-c.teil«e * nd so infnrr^dd the i.-i- 
f«»no!».nt iEi arror thr^oup-h hie Si-vant I^uxl^y, snd vlair.ciff in srror 
whoiiy raiiijid upon th-s rarrsB^ntntloriw of d^^f-uRdarit irs srror't 
agsnt Oil to tJ:» ocncition of f-bts iutoff.of ij-ai tuit, in ;;aa.ltion 
te aoiivariiig to «iiijf»ndant in >sirror*s o^^snt tb-s judffiraj'.t not-.* for 
fl3& £Us}Ci on, j;lnictiff in arr-jr i,.s.ici tha iiafssxid^tit in -errur 1175 





iH c.ti«h, un-i ralyiaf upon tha ssrrianty of cidf«n.d5i.nt la afror -us 
afor*it)-iid, thftt ne «»ouid n-.^.k.s gooti to tba plaintiff in «rror til 
that i,i«iatiff In i*rror -jJip^ndsd in t^ r. ira of th« initon'.obii««, 
plttifttifi' in *rror axcandad in r apr. ira on e;*ivi touto«,obii« tl4<« 
sjum ol" fiSo.^i ti)ut -aii of tntj rarjiirig > !j»r« neo*o«ary to j i»Ct» 
ttsa ffiscfiin* in running' Ciyndltion ae w Trisuts4 by th» ddfanmrit in 
jirror, unci tiJ?t no par* of ss-ilci aue of ti£>0, >:>«3, paid out hf wii* 
plJAiatiff in tirrof, *»© sv^r rafundaa to hia by <i4tf«nd&r.t in ^rr^^t 
or any 5 if son for hi». 

The pdtitioc further e.i4«g«s that th* i Iiiatiif in y. 
«rrof lutifiad ti.a d«sf*ndant in <*rror of tn* trs&ch of *ri.rry,nly 
in teutouiotiie bafi?rj the'.;rity of tb« nolj, i-nci thi v. tins 
Q«f«ijdant in drror proniieed that tsvarythinr would ta .T.ais ©fi.ti«« 
factory, cut that irttaad 'j>f -wkiaf: hie *y.rrjnty 4004, tfcw as- 
fdnsiant in arror, ooAspiring^ with his s,rent^ Buxi«*y, c:A.ua3iid irtj 
notd I.V5 to aftdoreed liy Hu;5l«»y 10 hlif?>, i^n:. ine^uitftbly and un- 
justly cuu«ed the juv-3£;Kfsnt to bi* cunfidusijci th"-r-3on. 

TM^ f.icts «ot up in tii^ pvJtlUon preeanted ts^uitAbiss 
^rountiK for this r«»li«f A&kad ia th^ p^titivon, i^nd t^.(» «uKici;:s.l 
Court tthoui'i hiiVa w.iio««(-j tha ,:i"-intiff in -^rror to . Idsa to 
ths ii.-jrits ^tvl deftjnd efointit tha ;--ction, 

Eaction ii of thd ^uaicipoi Court Act i; iv*»9 10 tisat 
court r-o>?ar and wvvhority, '\ftax tr.a lapfcy ■ji' thirt.y au^m trnw- 
th^ -sntry of ;i juii£;«t»nt, to vwciii^ it on .atiiiosi s-sttiKtr forth 
fuct^ «,hicr. *oui(,1 b«j tufficisJut to ucsu&.ii thai e!i«.iJ t;*)' ta v.nGS:.t«i!'Ci 
in a court -:!' d'ivity. Pi intif f in 3j:r:jr w.-Jii not £uii, ly of i ny 
uniiua as5 tiiy in cf8*i;entinp' his i»:ri-li<-& tion 10 ih^ Municij.&i Court, 
And tii'^t v;ourt, h&ving^, AUtiiiyrity oVir judgtt.a»nlB by ccafuBfiion 
fivam ui^dijr i-sotior. £i abovsj rafscrssii to, ehould b-'*v«» p3rrriU:dd 
th« piuiatiff in arrvor to viyfdn4 apsin«t the faction. 

Fcr th* 9TtQT in rsifuKinf to op«n up ths judg^ss«nt scd 
glv« jaL-iritiff in drror iaavs to n.^k^ dyfanas Ihsis juafXKwnt or or- 
4sr i« rsvt^raad atjid the* cfc.ueds r^: stnats^. 

Rs;vsPRjcD ami: rsmandkc. 

> • t •• . 1 /■ . f\ 

40*-iee7i / -|^ 8 41. A. 507 




June i'^, 1909, ranl«l Mcfleary -itsd Charltsft L. 
iiiJlhoufcts, copartner a, r«cov«r«<S :> jiidp-n.^^nt In th* iiuolcir'*! 
Court of Chicafo ».gsln«t Alfred £. Croft for l636.fi0 nn^l onats, 

for 3 tulancd of tbi4 purcb&ee pries agr&sjd to ts pttld by hiR, 
for cartHin ehard© of ttock unu-^r a «fit*'Sn contract. 

Froat the judgwdBt so rsJioarsu tiis d.^faridi»nt Croft 
pro««cut»d is. srit of «rror to thisss cjvrt, J'bdr^^ t?-.a juiice.ssnt «sas 
aff irfr.cfi on Octotiit 5, UUl. McHsHry y. Cr.>U, i..-.^ Iaa. Apj-.-aiji. 

On Juna 'vft, i'»0^?, thi i-.prai;3rjt «sx(Soulv»ct, ;;>«* suf^ty, 
H bond for th* ass.y of .{X«cutioa upott 8».i4 judgrifi<*nr in t?-« «ua 
of $10oC, which bo;-.<a ^?as fii#ci ^vA Ar'»r:>v*a in th« Vuuicipal 
Ccui t oa Juns 2':^, IvJO'-. th-^ JuigjE«nt fro»; which tha pr'saaiit 
8.npd&i ie i-ro8dout<iCi »&'- r.?r;i«r«d in ?».r action iiroufc-ht ssgaiuct. 
thd ar^aiifict, Krol£, ^ .:- «\irAX.y on tii^j s:'on:i, 

Ap.:!S)irvrt tiia-;! ti!?o c-laa;? t^i thd deol'^ratlcn on 
the to!*d,- one qT accord --^nci srai«fECtio.»:i and tfc« oib-jr .:*f pay- 
«.int. In tbs fir«t plsa it ie ..lUe*^^ ^^- *> 'aftsr tha axsov-tit-.u 
.>f tbs bonJ, aj^tsilSi r^cjsivsd y!jrtsiR nctse in %s tiBf-.ct i;>ft 
of tha j\.!ag»:a»nt. In th-s aaconc plwa it ie .'^ri'-jgisci th'-;t aftar 
Its a-saoution of ths lond, th;} xiot:?* *ar.2 raCTtivia' in ,)u.yif-3ftt. 



AC ti^Mtll 


On th* tri'l no ^vldenc* was offari^id to BtiOif'- that 
th« cota« of tlj« M«fid taanufioturiog CcKfisny *ejr« in fact a«X4ver- 
#d to grir.tll»« «t isny tiB;« aftar th* dxttcution of th^ bona. Ii 
«&« contsndaoi on th« trial and in tto^ coct,ant1«;i by CvOur-6.*i for 
a;:p»li»nt tfca.t tiia f^.ilurst of KcHi'inry .■ir.ri feliihci^aa to aurr««ii4r 
th« Rot«« at th« t;l»t» of th« trial in tte crigiRRi oai.a coii- 
etltutds 'f^n acc«pl£.nc« cf th« a^vca in R" tl«f •ction or Fe>ffant 
of the juii£:tt«rit. Thie conts^tioa, in our opinion, h\e no oaele 
In the ftfci* of the csbe no* calor-a ufc, nor hav. in any fcauitf in 
l&w. On th« trisi Lslo*, appeii^s voiunt&ril'y that, 
prior to ths entry of il^ Judgir.ant <tg-»in»i Ciolt, the four 
oot«» in :,u«8tion ««»r6 fii«6 «ith th^ rafersa in tsnkruptcy pro- 
ceedings 3ig5»>iR«t ths Jcfcn A. ifVdBd M»snuf< Qturing Co»rany, anc! that 
Blnod '.ha «ctry of th* Judg-itflRt t*o llvldaridif-, aggrsg^ting 
f4S.06, kaid fc«s«n ; « td on tha s^iw-ji, ».bioh s^-ount fApneiUnt con- 
6ftnt«.l to hav* crsdil6u ot the judf'«,«Bt, and thi* "rs-ount was 
«o cr«ciit«d In cosrputlng; rha sum fcr s.hlch ju-1gK«nt «?xt; i-en<3«rad 
agaisRt ar;s;l3at, 

.App«]lsnt in thi» C5f-j«, ,= « J;yryt.y or. th» stuy 
bon^, 1« ^stoypsd t? <2sny tb^t a r%lir! jud^-Trent •.-'"•&■ in frrca 
&t ths( ti/^.e of tha 'iX8C'..>tiGc of ^/it? bond. Any :.t>3i'sns.s in ih* 
nature ;f a paysraist ox* -liech^srga of ths> JUQ^rtiant trust -3 bsesd 
wpon f-^cts arifcina -sftirr ths •-;;x»o\-iiQB of th3 bond. £a:.i tt v. 
Whitak^r, 11 Hi. U?, Kiithsluri: -»' i. n. •'. Co. v, K.r>nry, 90 
id, "5ci iirt.tjn V. 'h^r:i0, ^:'i III. Apr,, lOi:^. 

s:acurity «,siy ,;ro«t3GX;t* >ii :iction Ai^r&inist thy d-;ttor ana ^jt 
ths «»,»:ij titt.;3 proC'9>«':S to rtjaiia;; u;:oa thj ssovrity, .^nri is en- 
titUa to fallow l;oth r3j;o3i'3it! until tho ciQbt i* -^uHy a'l.tif- 
fla^. Ridg^ly K'M.ionJi;i B^nk v. P^^tton * B^i^ilton, 10^ 111.479. 

Sa dQ not think r.hs ■:.'>,>Ui t rirrisd in r.ifuiiiTii to 
ptir^lt ftp;-«i'^nt to intr.'^juc* in «sviUt;c« the* tr^riacri. t ct rro- 
c««cliin£;d in tha Mcniciptil r*ourt ?nr5 th« oclnlcr. of ths A.,rv al i^ 

Court for tha purroee of ffhowlng wh*t f»ct« h'^d h««)R a<5Ju:!lioat*d 
in tba oxigiatel «uit of ^cHanry v. Croft, turr?. Tb^t ittodtion 
i« wholly Irroiuvant anl iRn^fttarlal to Iha prsf^ant Action 
frg-«iu8t thy ,»urety or tha stay bon4. Ajr^llint^s llptllity In 
thi«t ca6« lj£ «et&fclli»t«d by th« torr:e of tha bnr.d ax9cut:!»d by 
hltt. ( htt t>?no r»clt««f th« ju^^gitdrtt apsicat Croft for t;>t» «u»n 
of 161^6.80. Thia r«oit&l In th* bond blnie tfc« surety "-aa hs 
CRDnot b« re«rKl;t«d to lany th'^t 3t th» t4«e of ths ejcacuticn of 
th« bond a v&lld Bad un6&ti»*f iej Ju^g-aant ^■ss in fore*. Gssith 
▼ . Loi-.ano, 1 111, Anp. 171, 

•pjja iYldsnca off trad by tfipdllant aud rul«d out by 
the '..jri&l court tin not tanJ to aujoort the riss. It ^ppssred, 
on thd contrary, Cy adalsiaioc of couaaol for a.r-p*]lant that the 
not3« of ttia jiaiid Uaxiufacturing Comp^tny, from the thr^ of tiiislr 
dat<*, Acrll iO, 1908, /.ar^ in th« hands of WcHynry "iSiO Mliihouas 
fead s.l«ays rsssainea in thsir iisnda. ''h;. tevar r«y havi bs^n th<* 
2 4gai *ffdct of tha rstantloio of ^oseesdion of tha notd© &t\sx 
tho i;jntry of th* judgc^nt, sxich retssntion ?.:.ok' j:'iaoe tijfore lbs 
3X«oution of thr; st*y tone, aad Siirps lawt is attopped ti r^iis* 
cuch -is. ^iafaaas &y i'-s taiae of hi.> oonj, I*" cpcaViaat ft^rd not 
aatop^'dd by tii3 tsriTie of ti:ia bond to evaia hiriiSsslf of th3 .;»- 
f*ne4) cr«e3nt3d, tJ-j! f-:ct« urcn v?i..ich ha re'ii-:?)?. artJ ini-cff icifsnl 
both in ls.w £.r*.i in gooi s^or&ly t.o rjaXi«v«: his fros. lirifciiity. 
Ths! rst'^iiiioD of the t'ti-LcJ ¥.inuf.: cturln^; roe.,chi:;y nott»fc by X.hs 

jud£ir.«nt cr-iditor :Iii not constitute an ^vca:i.rd iiid ea tlafaotica 
or j.iiyipaet of tlj* judgsant. Th-» jac:^iEsiit crft.;)itor hr,a h CiSSi-r 
right to eatiafy th-i d 3bt r«r.u'©esnted by ti^^ ju:iff<:3at, if ha 
could, "cy i.-«ttirjr tfii i'-as:! asnufaofuxint Cosr;.:viiiy to ?&y -Jvs r*ois>», 
Th* nof,58 ■s^.sfd coli-vt3r«.i ;,c thw originftJ ln.3(ibtsiA3ss ana dio 
not e-atin la tfc-3 judgjt'snt. Nothlsf: occurrtjd sft-3r ti'i* jud(:n:jnt 

axii .liter V.i giviug of thvj bene eu$d oi. in this? ci,s4 .fhich >*.ouia 
i-ork ?. nay%snt or «j.h tihfsction of th-i jl^:iJ^;n -jat or bund, 

Th-3 judj«t>«tit ie sffirrr^d. A?FIRJ«S;D, 



.>u« «i*T 

4I.A. 527 



oT^er reriE/ 1912. ITo. 


& Ei;iLDI:.'C ASSOCIATION 9t al,, ) 

Ap olleats^ ) 

▼a. / 


JOHN C. TRAIROR/tt «!., 

I Appellsas. 

^ i 

\ i 

* tfcia ttpp^al by tba coi6pl«*-ins.iJt ie from aa ord r 


fixing the aaount of th« B-;:^iatar'4 faes in thsa cuuey. Tha rec- 
ord contains ov«t 16Q0 pages of tyr««rit;;8n testistony and ploav- 
in£;e ana «xhlbit9, A rortioa of ths isetlmony was taken odfonst 
Ma-eCars Ccopar And Huam«t; another portion wag t&kan bafora 
tfa»tdr Lsajr-in^. Th« cauea, with tha t.e»tl»ony qlr'^^^^dy tak«n 
bdfore t/i^^ abova caresj-l fr.«st©rG, -aas rsf«rrtid to Master KHiia 
to taks additional svidinca aad rsrort his conoluaions of law 
and fact u::on ail taa taetinsony takan in th-:j csea, Ths chaa- 
ceilor, after haarinp ih<i t©atl».ony of s^vcsral ^itnsfi^sa, 
»aat9rs in chancery and oth^ro, fix«d th>a fsa of tho r'-'star at 
tS75, arid air^ctdd that th^s eum l-'a dividacl batwedn the p?srlise, 
,, coasplainant and daf$nd«*.nt, dqualiy, U. oa coaeilaration of th« 

"" tdstifflony cffar«d> ana -jxairination of the rt^corci, *« find no 
res«>on for rsvareing tha orcar. -e cannot say thai th* f^d, 
aw HxiiiS 0,^ ihd ctanceilor, io -sxcasaiva. ^es d •; not conaidssr 
th^ croas-errore aaeigned by M-.atsr Ellia, .'a h« ie not a 
party to ttm oauee. 

Thd ord«r is affirirdd, 


nt' •./ 






i ^4 L 


3r Tern, 11T2 
i&4 - 18831 

DAVID K. JZrrP.lB at al., co-/ 




184I.A. 533 


hR. JlETICii 



Th« only Iteu* csf f ct in this cag* jraii»dd by tha 

cfirtiiiia lisjfi t/slon^in£:. to clsintlffe, th« s.ppei]ji.ijt». At lint 
clo«a of riaifttlffis* CAi**, ths ovurt, or tsotioc of <i«f*isd«ttt, 
dlrsctsa ihisi jury to .find i- Viraict for vitsfi»n.ix-nt, Thsf errors 
ftattlgnttdi ralat* tc thv* giving of s^uch •.'UrifCtion snd to ii^s rul- 
ing* o« jVi4c;Ros, 

It i« urg«di th-ist th* actlcn For this fUrisctao vs.-.r- 
iict ubouia have bd-^n In js-.rit.jng, 'Ai* itj-s citid to thsj rui* of 
praetit's tjt,-^twa in L.;'nat v. McCwi:;3U|^,h, '^^ lii. 610, tbat a 
dsfturrsr to *;-uca sXiWt c.5 ic ""ritit'.j/. Ira B^j-rtaio; t v, Int-^r- 
aivtioftsi B;«.nk, 119 iij. "5*0, It »».« esid tbat B'hi3!* is eotion to 
uir«:.'l ?. vaciioi le in ihs» of ■■* issrurr-jr to gvid^iice, ths 
e:^^* tiscatiicfsl p^xtlcvi-vrlty lis nol rtiquirsd in ths fcrssar a.s 
th(S istiar, -^.n-i th-t 11. in ut-uai ly Inforsi*-! .ixi-i YhOSii fra^ixuatxtly 
atiaa s by simply rt-iss^ntin^' t>o tto's ao\jft :f>.B insitruction to L* rlv^an 
i;?r rcUi&iid. R«farrii:;|r t.v Itofe* Ciivg-s,, in S*ift A coasp&ny v. Fua, 
167 ia. 442, tns u.vrt w<:;ye th« i5*tter practice ie th«t such 
iasU'uctlon slwulii t^i in «ritin£. Bui it io«j« not s.rf^i9.r th&t 

6 /fotion to cJir#ct d verdict fi;;84 ba ir. .riiin£ sv *; 

Ln Cvurte 

^•^iL . 


goTornod by tli« pr*ctlci» actn. 5i"uoh lum-u is It r«quired in 
th« MuBlcifjsl Court *h«r« tl a practice ol' oral inptrvjctlone ■*n(i 
In Borrtg c:i»8* oral pleadings obtains. 

It ifc n«xt oontandfiti tb^t th^j 9vld«ftc» ft*d» f. ^r in a 

j^fec; l.» y.^fc* for claintiffe «i5ii th-wt it «a8, tli«rs.for«, arror for 
th« c^url to direct e v«r<iict for dsfsttjdsnt . 

It <^pp4are tton. ths svidsfice Ihs* t totfc parti»« had 
tias in e«parst# pil-iie on ih« n<:ftb back of ths Ohio rivar at 
Brookpori, IlllB0ie« ».lon£et;i4 a. ©«itcli track of th'S I'illnots 
C9ttir>vl r. ilrosd. Th* ti&« w«r<s digtiofuii^lied by ;riViai!i {jt^rft*. 
On plaintiff** wste » ia.ub of hro^n p^iint. Both c.-.<rti«© w^sra 
•ccwttorssd to unlo.■^d tiee Pt tbie r^int fro» ttrg:^* J^J^d load 
t^OK on rvsiiro-'d <jar»;- for ehlpxent, KoK«tl».« bst-Rsan lisarch, 
1809, tiOti A^cril, lv>iG, about. 6000 of plaintiff 8* lias &t this 
fifcce, v-r'^'CticRJii.y sli th«y bsd, di«sipn«arad, Beth ahlppad 
t4«» frott Brookport via th« liiincis C«ntr»l rt.ilro';^, and ?rgy- 
l;lll« of ehiprcsRte- during; tU^A t .ttsriod -^sre introiucact ir. 3^'l- 
69Iioa, aitiiout i-.TO'^f, '■'« C4»iff'5d by apc^ll'^a, that tb-ssy elios'Sd 
» 1 1 gi t; i pif « n t « of t i =j B ..i u r j n.r t h :- 1 t i».« . 

ihe proof rssiidct -tipon lo ccrmaot dsjf'iiniAnt Kith 
lb* r«s':OVi'l of scsld ti^a '«i?s lir^i-eiy circu«-«t*.'Gt tsl. Tn^ ^ay- 
tills raf«r «d to L»adad to ehov* th« t during llr^A. lias i'mritiffs 
dla noi e,-^.k'i, d«f*ndKnt and ,?i,hirs did wik*, «hipff;^ttt« froff 
Brookpoft, ;*nd cRiy th« ehlr>!?<i?nt«! of a^fsn'i&Dt «xciSi*d>*d in 
qju?i«tity tha itutrbwr of ri&ictiffB^ tisje. 

>-e do nn^ de*c. it n30!Si<!.fi,ry to amj^l^^t iha croe« 
«rr.:u'« i>asigti«d &» to tb* .law^i^i^ieibii ity of e~io -.fesy-tiii^. 
Assualng tha/ w«r« ^.Imis-islolsJ, y^^t s« find nothing thsriio or 
coRGsctad -vb*rr**lth Inconftietani ■^••irfc defenr^fcrit'e osnarehip 
of ths tise it «fclr,F»d, or any thing pointing T^^iih ssny d*|rr-j^ 
cf cdrt-rJioiy to ilj^lntlffa* o^nfarahip xh^r^of, Ti:^ r<ic^rrt 
doas not sh->ffi- wno ioi^aad ths lisjs r-isferrdd to In th? Rsy-fciile, 
or 'Ahar* ttiay a«rs lo"-d3d. 


.ani^Jtcfo a^nicBsiq Isio 

. it 






Tin* ns&r««t to dir^sut avi4j*noa on V-.a S'Ubjaot con- 
tti6t«a of t3«tiB;CRy gtvan by two per sane tc t!.» «f2f«ot that 
whils r»e.«icg a«.li at? itch in ".he fiUKasr of 2S*0^;, th«y »»« » 
gang of «;«n iois^iin^ oar* i^lth tiea bearing a. Vroxn ps-lnt »ark, 

tdnddnt or y;^^ra fcrsiraa at th^t j.-ltoa for «av4rsl yatra, ir.ulua- 
Ing i\:$ yttsT in CiUimtion. One, vh^n =^Bk«d wht? t Haneon wae rio~ 
iBf, fc:.i'i ha -sfatg ■sitting- sroun'^ Chajt^J on ^ lis s.^ils," but e»la 
be did not kco* niho wa^ concluclinr tha loading, Ksitb^r 'f tFisn 
i««tlj.'idd tj anything froK which It coulc! r.3?;l-ly tj« inftjrrsd 
tn&t haiiitfori »a* sur*r intending the losdilnc' c-f «'*ici tiae, or that 
he ««i9 i^46sr3 in tta oajaclty of lafsRdsnt's agsnt fcx any f:ur- 
ro«9, or th"t ihi ««» »ar9 astrioysci by 'S^sfsTident, or tiu I t,h« 
tiae 7 larai t?^i;an fcy <3af*ndsnt. 

The burdsB wj^c on piulntiffs to r.rovs ths allaga- 
tiob iJj>*t d«fen'i5.nt tco> the t.««. It ^"!«s not iGoiigh to show 
an Oi::,;ort\ioity to tr^kd th^a, sa:? that or« of ii*f's!nii&ttt •«,• ?s£.dr.ts 
waiii jtrawant s-Jjan tbey ^^ra iO*>daic3. Evldvescs fhr-^t r^siely r'siiesi; 
k'v'ioK la insuf ricisnt. A carsful rsvie-^ of thij dvia-dticia 

CO»|?«i» ih3 coriclveioR tfet it dr-^e not fejlrly trsm to ishow that 
d»f'dncaat took tna tiae in -;u'?«ticn^ and th^it ths Jiiry cDtiicl 
oot fi«a for rlo.intiffs ih^rsfroRE. i^ithout "^^ ctin^ unr^aconstly 
iii Ihii aya of tbs ia^.* (titwy, McSaiH ^ libtj;/??? t31. 2v;6. ) 

Pisintif/-,; (afnj^rht to r;.^DV& s. s^tH ' ssf? ant f..i.ii!6 fcy esia 
K».ason ao&sd tv'»a ys^rs * ft^jr r.h^ (sv-snt <".fi/4untinj: to an S4.iMii-.;«ioR 
ihat ;i<d tJok the ti^s. The court pro^'irlv rvis-i it »-« inada.ig- 
8ibla, or« this j::rou i»a that il v«&s not ■•■ i-'-rt of tii^ .£2!^ jB££-LSJ« 
(Low'ii«A V. 'R'il^oc, ^l."^ id. s'.40). W'ai r^r* jfiso'. imr-rde^tict fcy tns 
contention th^.t thi« ruiis sh^'-til'-:' not fcs »rifv>rcissri *>frv.iii«t a ccr- 
pi>r«.tion b^GKrjQS It C'ir, «pT«a'^ C'aly thr^u^rh ;i?-'ints. 

It ifi Aiiao c;''ntar;drrtd th-t th>=sre ?'<?(a ^jrcr in r.-;r- 

t»^«fta . 



•b $»tis itoiS 




Kitting oa« of rlftiotlffs' '»ltn««»«e « oto«»-ssx!i«;.i».?»tlcn to 
l»«tify t.hsit h« haci r«port»<i to rlalritlffa in writings, while 
in th)*xr ♦■sploy, that ha undartitood n«groaa *era carrying &*»/ 
thdlr ti^ai for fual. ^-d n«*?jQ jaot ooB«i(1(3r its coir'p«t«ncy , for 
it may i«alX hav« b««n dsoludtid in noting on this eotlofi to di- 
t«ot a vsrvSict t*oau«« taking'; alone all the 3Tisi«no3 fdvorabla 
to pl*intlff», th» c;uft pyopuriy h«lcS ttjat it waw ir»euff Ictant 
to warrant tht* t,ufcml»«lun of tht» c£M8« to this j-ry. 
Tb« judg(c«nt «1IJ b« drflrR!«-.1. 

oTscr Term, 1912. TTd/ 


Ap tfllid^ 



Vt», f ) 


C. GORDON VARTIK, Incortfjrrt t,i»4, j 
Ap|:«ljfant. ) 


'\ ■<■' 

Thla w&e an -action lo r^covar ds»ag,«e for inju- 

ri»» raeulting;, ya cleiased, froir nagllc^nt perforr^ance of 
dantel *ori. by ap;«liaat, the dafandant in tha caws. 

Tka contention tbat ap; aliact, bslng a corpora- 
tion, coulc not engage in tha rraotioe of ddntiatry ie untsjc- 
able. Tha ict rerulating tLa rracticta of dentistry coatalr.** 
provie ior.e coniSBi l»ting that oompaniaa, corjoreted and unir<- 
corporatdci, R&y enpaga in euch practles. (Chfir, Si, P^ r. 'l-i-b, 
Hvird'a R. B,), and ti.e rroof is unocntrovir t^d t.h&t dsf-andiint 

undertook to ccnriy Kith tlisrr, through pereons tsjrployijd for 

that pur. OS* as contsioiv leit^a by tha act,X'3**€-'t'"*''^ ^i^"' ''■^*** j xiio- 


Refusal to subait tc ihss ji.ry cdrt;*ir, iritsrrofc:a- 
tcrisis rs«ciue»l5d by asf ^sncanr., ie cisgigngd » arror. On^s nbisa 
whdtbssr ths dafdndant sas 3n£:agsd in tht* practicts jf dantistry, 
anoiiiar KinslhST plaintiff dEploysd dcsfand nt »« a dentist to 
r«pair h«r taath, Nsiih^jr fact bainf: coritrovsjt tad, x-ha refuaai 
to «ub«.it feuch interrogator lag , if arror, ?'S43 harwlaea, (Paopl«i 
V. CoBin-^^roial Ina. Co,, ^M7 lil, .3.) 

Another interrogatory '.-.ssk^d vh^Vvst any of riain- 
tiff'a t«9th .-ari lost and anothsr ^ni&thar siny v;«r3 in^ur\>d &nd 

— .i.__j __ _ _^-...i4. ^r «.K^ ,„-,»>.^iir»fr .'\-F ,-\ .4 randan t. Ati eonS of th3 





counts of thd (i«oluratlon allagoci ind ths «vld9no9 landed to 
show othdr ravults of tba alldgad nagllgsnce, naxcely^ Vinn9cd»> 
•ary anguieh &nd iistreea, azKii sbock and injury to tfin narvoue 
syetdrr., nsithsr of eaid lnt«rrogatoriafi, cor both tog<3tbar, 
called for all the Xiltii£&t« and oontrolling faote. 

rubj«}ct to thd aarta dafeot ^a© another intsrTo- 
gatory wn^tbir plsintiff sfford«d dafandant a r»»»on&bl8 op- 
portxinlty to cure thd ullagad «or«n«e8 and pain. Tb«i evi- 
d9nc«» t,*ndad to dhow not only tus causing of unnacnaeary eore- 
ness and p&in by unskillful -dsntietry, but ruination of th-a 
ttfdtb^ cepdcialiy for parwanant Drid^e sork. 

Another interrogatory war, whether boring bolee 
into the roots of certain teeth for the purroee of fixing f^gs 
thdr^in for fsetsning and utt«ching a bris^ge wfca iitprorer dent- 
istry. Tid cIsiR was not that tiuch {r,9thod was iaproper but that 
th3 tori.jg through the laeth into the bony ti. sue of ths ja'* 
bona was ne£lig.?nce. 

Tso interrogatories vtar-d subBiiti^Jo that fjid re- 
quire & finding of viltittate fscts on tha ifs^iua© forft.ed, snd 
there s&a no urror, for the r^assns ft'.ared. In r^fusinp to 
sutirit tha o«h^r int^rrofsttorias, (Chi-.:?o:.go * Northi?9ctern 
Ry. Co. V. Dunlai&vy, iPi'j III. i5i-, Chicago City Ry. Co. v. 
Olie, Hjrj id. ^14.) 

1 1 ik, contended also that t e verdict wat sa/ii- 
feetly against the 'fleight of the evi^-s-ince. «e do not deec it 
neoeeeary to aiscuss tlie sviirsnce at ieng-th. Ii tended to alios 
thi=.t on;» of defands-nt'o et-pioyais negli^etit^y b^red through the 
roota of fjur of .tlaintiff't Lrseth into the alveolar rrocSQie 
or bony liesu^t? of the ju*, tberety caut^ing a .minful condition 
th&t re (Uired long ;. r.^-^ iff.ent >ir.a ren-jersd iftcrotaLlp the flucing 
of a pero^anent dente.! trid^-e. '*e think tha aviieoce justiiii«d 
the vsrdict. 

ill to'i.&ll.c -^-Cl.t- •! . lot. !:■ i-rt^ to 9^01100 
>.To \tci . wafi •••a 

*•; t 


•w j *" 

It i» cl«li]«ct that \.h(» coiirt «rrad in not striking 
Ottt l«»timony fiveu by fl&lntiff of pair* s-nd euffering both »«bii9 
and after the work wae parforatad, la ?ain ffight rmturaliy ac- 
ooapany d«nt&l work of ©ucfc cbaractar. It >*&t not arror 9 8 
oth^r tbfitiiLonsy t,«ndad to 8ho« th^t^dlat-e Int^nsd t&in sm 
ooodltionti c&ueiug additional and unntjose^sary pain mould ra^ 
suit froGT. C!igllg^r.oe of «ucb char&ctar. 

Pralimlnary to giving export t. ieti»ony, another 
viamtlet ti»etifl«<i that ha sxualnad plaintiffs? t:5«th th« fol- 
lowing yaar and found th<< roote of the four tasth in queetion 
bad baan drilidd tnrough to th« and of tha bony and eoft tl©aua. 
It i« cluimad tb»t inas&uoh as plaintiff^ in iha m^&ntis^, h&d 
badn unsi;ir th* treatRsnt of a-nothfjr ciaritlet, who had probsd into 
th« roote, eucb testiaony *Jia impropi^rly r .caivad without «bow- 
Ing that nobody diejs had bordd into such tieeuea eubeequent to 
tr«atii.dnt by ^efisndant. '^hatbsr or not tha conditions cor; iain- 
ed of «8srd c3U8ad or aggravated oy anything rionis by sii'hstr ^i 
the t*o dantistB «ho t«etif i»d , »vUo s Katttsr for tha considiara- 
tion of ths jury upon «hioh opportunity for oross-ssxa<Lina,iion 
«aa affordad. 

Thci oacr9t.?.ry of ti:« Bt-sie Bci<irci of Dental Exajr.inara, 
who hria the ouulocy of th* r^icord of licdnaa* it':fcU3a to dar.tiisitg, 
taetified th;-*l he ii^^.3 axuninsd iha sans and found no rscord o:!C 
a iics*n«a to on^ J. P. Clark, ths i;an;3 of tha safipioys o4E asiftfad- 
ant who oparatad on plaintiff. Thie Aass coarQtsjnt ivicirfiico, aiid 
if dd«»tsd inco&pstent caoauea, ^-.a it afterwards ■ai.'pa&.T^Af no 
axaKination wat madss to datiarn-ina eheth^r any licdney n&d tfssn 
iesued to a dantiet by the n&(re of Clark witu the initial "J" 
only, than to preearva the point for review a motion shouia have 
bden aiadi* t.o etrika it out, 

Wa find no rsv^raibls srror in tha r-joord, 



yfa9mli*»i tuo 

a Hum 

. St 

yaamtt^i^xS •d4 

iJtu^i Axium 


- b^ro4 fr«4 tttt^ v&od 


^« iro t9di' 

> 10 ft* 


. 't'Ji'l S'^'* 

lo aoiJ 


toter Ten., isi2. 1?^, 

4<J4 . lea^i 

iUERT STANFOKD HALL «»t fei., v»;c., | 


184I.A. 537 

APPEAL rmv vmiQiPAi 





i^pvllftDtB i3U«d #ppttl]i«08 for oo»mi»&iQn« ollsgad 

to 1)4 du« ihe» aX *rchit«cta/un<iiST a Crfrta^in contract suterad 
Into i.etw««n thija[..\jlp' «H<pr'38 dar.isd joint llabi3it> tharaundar. 
Tha court dtractad a variilGt for thair.. Tha ccntract r«latda to 
pian«, «tc.^ for ti>« conetrvotion of a thaatrsj buiidinj:, and 
ie aabodied in c«rtair. l<Jt are b:it*««n tha pjvrtiae and 45 stip- 
ulation. In Ji lettsjr datsd Sovstt.bsr 9, iOO?', sppsllaee rrojosad 
to ajiFaiiaaia aa ths tceia of coapeuB*-. tion for tViair earvic^s 
that tnay «hou3d ra aiiowad it of tha sr.tircs cost of thss etruct- 
i.ra, *8ti(»;atad tit |?C,COG, for . .r-i;ii«:iR&r;y ®iudi<<s, ii-i? tor gar.- 
•aral dra«ijQg«t aaa ap«clf icjitic-rs, if. for oetailii, appalLses to 
hRVd tli» banafii of tiny of eucb «ork acns in cata thay ax^rcisssd 
th« right to discontinue apt ©lltuits* e rvlc*©, and li^ for ths 
genarai »ur*rvi6ion of th« aork. 

Bafors a c;:niraot for thss titructura *..c 3 at, ajs- 
pallante' sarvicaa •s^ams diecontinusd and tha jartnarithin be t®* .sin 
appeileas «ac disolvisd. Eubsaqvantly Peidier ?ilone procesdad 
»ith tha traction of tha mnioture at a cost of ubout |13C,000^ 
on j.26n8 snd oracif iCiAiicns aada by isro^itac t, ^iwilar 

in ff.any deifiiie \o ibof-e ftirniehad by ap- elLsnts, A; pliant© 
s<ara piaid i^'jt- on 180,000, tha aatlRatad coet of tha building. 

■ idt 


kwI J 



and cUviit>«d 3f^ on its tactual cost. After n«ttin^ forth tlMI 

b»«l« of co«Er«nes»tJloo in substsncd cte afordestid, th@ Jet'-^r ra^ 

fdrr«d t<. proc!*>ide tc e>y: 

"Ha ar« «tarting out on the theory that tbie lie- 
proTa»«nt ie to c« k«ipl within the coet of f^O, OOO.CO and 

n« would ues thl« as a baeia ic c:^s« of concluding to 
diacontlnus* your t^arTictte, but in csea j»»« conriiiue rith 
your fira to tho oomplation of the an lira rrocooad in- 
proTSKsnt, j«s ar* to pay th<s regulHr &jfc upoja ©utjh full 
'«gitinatid coiit." 

In reply undor data of SovftRtber 12th, arrallante 


■Wa bag to atfiite furthar th«t our undaret^indinfr 
of your letter of tha l--th inat. in that th« propoead 
$80,000, 4oat ie tho apf roxinate which ia to ie ue«d for 
aetiwatirg tha emount of our cot-'nieeion, up to ouch tiae 
J* ycu Bh.ill Oi-'ntrwct for iKa araotion of a building, 
aitusr und'<r our eur«rvisioo or that of gonia ons alee, in 
•Thich c&ec tha contract irica aatared into by you, or i*ia 
coat to you of such tulldlrg, including ali at>Uion&ry 
fixtures, furniture and dacorations, «ill ba tha prinoiral 
on sdhich our ooaplfeifelon shall ba consvut^d," 

On 16th, a "oodif icntioa of tha contract 

axecutsjd Sovawbar '3th," signed by all th<d cartisa, providas aa 


■The 'iUaetion of aeltlaitant on tha |80,CX)0.00 
bMsia ehali not prevail aftar the contrac'c for etruoture 
hava basn iat, but thw .ij-rgrdj jite cost in Gccordanca -Aith 
contracts lat shc-iii bs tha b sit of settlaffiamt in oa^s of 
diacoutinuing sarvicas of H^^lTi A Eakar." 

Th« oonfri'-ct to bi^ild 'sao not ;at cy nor for ti"!« 
rartnarahi^f . It wa* not a j;>int ucdartak In^-; i:yl«asn u--sai;a-»a 
uuch Kis we.» coRtampltttad by the cnitact, I', ^oulcl ba unraaeon- 
ubi« to hold that fefter tha dieeoiution of tha rartridrebip 
una of tha .ciirtnars could £c ahaad >:in^ lat a contract at any 
prioa end r^ndar ifaa outgoing partnar li-ibla for cokr ifctiione 
baaad upon such arrangsrent unie*?© ths contract ^xpta^-a-ly eo 
providad. Tha i».ngaia|?s of f-cj allants' lattar, in tha v^orde "m. 
to auoh ti»a ae you ehiali contr:-^ct * ♦ • in ^iaeh casa tha con- 
tract j rica antarad into b> y u," convae -latea th»t air.allsaa 
should antcr jointly into & cont i?,ct for tha aractlon of t;,a 


'•?*■ «P' 





Ths con«truotioA of the contract eusd en was » 
question of l^it for tha oourt, and it properly inatructed a 
verdict for apy «ll99e on tha theory that it imposed no joict 
liability on tt^tt. to pa,y aotruiituionti on tha btaais of ih:) &c- 
W«il co8t of tiia siructur* in Tiaw of th^s fact trat ihe ccn- 
tra.ot for thd etruolure v>s;i«s not Jii Joint undtsrtaking. ^o 

Buthoritiss in ©upport of thia proposition Rised bs cittjd, 

Th» judg»eoi le affirmad. 



.'. bam ^iiw .\clim»jJi 

• 9liil0AtUt', 

3er Tern, 1912/ IToT 
372 - 16839 



/ Appeal frcm Circuit 

V0. J / 


a oorporatlon, 1 

Appellant. /) ^ O >■ T « 

Court, Cock Ccunty. 



Appellee as plaintiff recovere^i a judgment against ap- 
pellant as defendiunt for denagee on aooount of poreonal injuries 
said to have been received through ti.e negligdnco cf the defend- 
ant. Plaintiff «a« a fireman in <lefendant«c boiler room, in 
whicli there were five boilers, three of which were in u«e at tiie 
tlffie of the acoiuent. Underneath each boiler there was? an anh- 
pit. The one in which plaintiff fell ie ieeoribei by hlia a^? be- 
ing reached through an epenine in the floor about nix feet aqusre. 
Upon thie opening there rested usually a ncotitn sever, whioh when 
m place fcrtnev-i part of ths fleer. This cover vnti< taken off when 
the cinderc an<i a«pbee were being thrown ttcm tliQ pit. 

Plaintiff testlfiod th«t on lh« asorrlng of t,h« accident 
one Buftlng, his helrer, wg« vrorklng ir. tfe^ ashpit. Th^ ocver was 
removed in order that the af^hoo anA oiPxKiv?- mlf^ht bo thrown out. 
He further teetifieti th; t h& w?.^ tn tin way tc boiler f4o. 3, and 
that the roor. n^a fi'il»:k with ateaa. gc Uenge that h© wa^ unable 
tc eee. TLe witneeeea for defendant, on the othor hand, aay 
thut tho eteajE vae rc ti^ck but that the floor could be seen. 
Plaintiff teetlfiod that he did not kuo^ at iuo tiuse he wae there 
that iha place wae open. He haU charge of the boiler room and 
eonsetlcaeo aseieted hie helper in roocvlng th>3 oinuere snd aohee. 
He further eaid: *^e alwayis had thie hcle covered becauee people 
had to walk through there. It had tc be covered. It vm a wooden 

. *X^ QW 

'tiJ Ti2^ S^X.\ 


'.r*?,-v,.Ti : F/.j 

JiVt V^M'i \ &1 


cover. No hinge* on it at all. ^h^r. liio ccvor was on it fcjraed 
a part of the fleer. It wae a scrt cf a trapdcor; you oould piok 
%h9 ccYer cff anU put it to one (»ii1« irh«n you wantod to U9e th« 

Tb« right to r«oovar is predicated flret upon the alle- 
gation that the defenaant furniehed plaintiff an uneafe plHce in 
which to work, in th,<^t it negligently maintained it» boilere; and 
boiler rooo »o that oteani exhausted into the rooK, and alJowed 
the glaese in the windows to become bro1?»n, eo th?.t cold air com- 
ing in ocntaot with the steam caused it to ccndeneo and remain 
suapendcd in the room, by which it becaase difficult to obaerve 
pbjecta in the room; and, oeocnd, thst there wan a violation of 
the provieiona of the act to provide for the health, confort, etc, 
cf eaployea, which act became in force January 1, 131C, and ia 
now a part of chapter 48 of the Revieed !?tatuti98. 

Teotion 4 cf tho statute is? an follows: 

•All LoiJsiwaye, hatchways, elevate r welle aM wheel 
hclefi in factcriei, mercantile e"tabliohrr*ent3, tnills cr 
wcrkehot^e ahall be securely '"enced, encloasd or otherv^iao 
esfely frctected ^M dv;© ulligano-« phall b« uaeA to Keep 
all auch ttoar.e cf protection closed, ©xo«pt wh^in it la neoea- 
sary tc have the ??aKe open, in oru+jr x.lbX tlis »aid hatchway©, 
elevatore cr hoisting apparatus Eiay be used." 

Ife dc not regtrci ether porticrxs cf th'3 act applicable 
tc the situation. 

The place irtc wi.ich plsir-tlff fell cctser^ with the 
defir.iticr of "hatchway." l\ is tc be noted that ihl?^ section 
provides in subatarce tin-tt auch a hatchway ^hall be fenced, en- 
oloeed or otherwise prcteotea, and tbot d\u^ iiilizXiP,o^ shall be 
ueed tc keep ©uch mean« of protection clc&ed except ^hen tha 
hatchway necesaarily guet be open jr. crder ihi^t it may b e u sed. 
It is clear froci tho tetJtii^.cny of tha plalrtlff thftt the ccver 
of the hatchway ef feet iv.--'ly prcteoted it wh«r. in '/"'.ace, anu that 
it cnlinarily *a«? in place. It apparently wa<7 part cf hi#s duties, 
ae he was in oh^r^e of the boil«r rcom, tc see thit it waa in 


.lU #« ti no 


*xo^il **«i; 

T fl 


. . £ .i«Xi«« 

.i il 4&t*i al «ii9« ol 4oiii« 


■ it- ,Jiu:;-' 2.i; suit TO"} ».?-Hf&t.; ,>5 ir. .o *(lol«ivoii; »ii9 



ylaoe whenever the hatchway was mi being, uted. 1% «a« »l»c hiet 
duty Tor hit own proteotlon tc a«o«rtain that it wa« down before 
he attempted to crcee the hstohway. 

It ie argued by ti« niairtlff thrU in additlcn tc hav- 
ing the ocver placed ivheL t^^ hatohway taft net in use, the 
la*, itapcoed Ufcn the defendant the duty o^'* putting a fence or 
oonse ether p«x»tec«ion about the op*iriing while the hatchway was 
in uee. In cur Of inicn thi« prevision »ay not b« r«ad into the 
statute. The utatute if^ epecifio In all its' prcvifUor?!?, and a 
requireffidnt such as* i© i^ug^ected by the plaintiff io aueent. 

It i« argueu by the flaintiff that it wse ihs duty of 
the defendant to plead eieolally the exception mentioned In sec- 
tion 4, Wo do not eo xinderetar.d the j-r*otioe. The oa»e cited 
ey plaintiff »«» to the n<»oeeoity of pleading th» statute of 
another etate l» net in point. The ccturt nunl of courcse tale 
jU'Jicial notice of a statute of thi» state and all ttxst is there- 
in contained. 

A groat deal of t«?«tiaony waf ads-iitted, «?« tiink erro- 
necualy, with referer-cs to the breaking or a*T". Thle evi-iently 
war? allowed through a alsconoept ion of ?«hat, if anything, might 
properly be irtro*iuoed under the firct count cf the declaration^ 
which charg;<5d that tt.e defon-dant R«glii;«r:t"ly allowed ssteaa tc 
«f?oat;e in the roofls and n?;gli gently allowed '♦aivsr^ of the lights 
of gl&ee in th« windcvsrs of fiaiu boi3«r room to becom'S ana reaain 
broken eo thnt the cold air ccising into contact >iifitfo the stoaa. 
caused the fiajye to rapi^ily cordense," ©tc. No aenticn is inaue 
in thf^ declaration of r» broken "T" and ihe'? escafc of nteacj 
did not render the boiler room an unsafe place, nor did the 
breaking of a "T^. Keexe v. ArKCur ^ Co., Sbb 111. fc*8. 

Baelng our ccnclusicn entirely uccn the teetisiony of 
plaintiff, rt« are of the opinion th-st lh'3 statute r>3ferrad to 
wap net violated by th© defendant, and thnt the well knc«n prin- 
olplea &9 to aefiumptlon of risk and acrtributory nsgligence on 

aoi^osjoiq nttd niti nuj xtiiij 


■ taw 


ih» p»rt cf the plalrtiff required that iU& Bsctlcft of th^ d«- 
fendant to direct a veniiot in llo favor be grartad, Chioa^o 
& E. I. F. n. Cc. V. Kecr«y, SOS 111. 49:3; Brown« v. ri'*a«l* 
Coof-er A Co., 191 111, 326. 

1f9 agree with plaintiff thnt the doctrine cf aosuapticn 
of ri«k ie Kot applicable where there ha»" be«r. a violation cf at 
statute (rtreet^r v. western Vh«eled t?)craper Co., 254 111, S44), 
but ae heretofore etssted there wae not, in cur cfiniort, a viola~ 
tion cf a statute. 

The judgment will le revfjr^ed. 


oli^r Term J ISl^T^liC 
415 - ;e862 



COJfrAiVY, 3 Corp./ 

84I.A. 546 

Appeal mom bupspiop 


Aprsliint. ) I 




JudgBssnt In th« Superior Court was entared in this 
ca«« in f^v.7r of tb« appsllea (-..» rlfiintift &n<i i^ralnttt th« ap«> 
peilaiAt se iefan-lant, in >in octlon for ihnragee for p^ii eonai in- 
juries a.ii.jjg*d to hftV'^; besn svifrtaindd through thd negllgsnca 
of tA»« dtfendant by th« f)l!Jintiff whils in it» se.rloy, 

Tbd acciQant occvirr«a 30, IfeOS*, a fs* dayig 
bafore th* plaintiff fc^cajt* 17 y*are of ?f-e. Hs h?^d be«n ^^'ork- 

ing for ttid cisfdndaiit for abovit t«n uontbe rrior tiVfirsto, his 
duty t«ir»£ to t&.ke iuBt,-. r a*ay frop ji p;''nin£ a« aia pu;. it 
on truuJte. About t^vSHty lAys tafciy t'.^ uo<;i;;<*T:t ha -^'f^e piacaci 
at work "f^adinc a eorsrer," ■* ».5cliin« uti^ci in iL^ manufftctur* 
of flooring. It strj-^i n'-jcasfesry that dull kniv^e ba thkisn f rou- 
tes K:-*chiii® onoa or t-'^'ice saoh dfiy wnc- sharp onas inaert«d. 
This axchfenga was /„&a& by uKothir airpioys cf i^s d^f«ndi>nt, s-nd 
it wast t!.« ;ri*otic9 for ths ri^^intiff to rut hia hi^nd in tbs 
hola in the micohin^, out of wliich tha knifa clock had h^^n rdfi,ov«4 
and clec-n out ils 8i;avirij.t in iba hoi* ao taat thd block could 
be properly raplaoad, Po*er wa* furnishad th* piaobine by oaanB 
of A b«it ruuairu, in thj u81j«.1 way froK .in ovarhaad shaft to two 
pulltye, ona tight it&d the oti.:*r loo»3, isrKi att'«ob8;i to th^ KF-.chA 
it:« at the floor. 

^TOt^tf «t*^ t^n*^^ ^tfOifA .iii(>A;w >.v 

....... ^. t .^^ .,^^^ „ ^i ,jni"- 

"'■■-WW imAj',^-- .... ^v.-.'. ...>-. V. 
.- 11:11 si isf -" ' •■'•'• sttUt*! 

• 1 «.... > ,. ,. j oOiflOitHJ 

• *i%tntntifi saw ^ "^ . ->ui.^v. 

.19uil Mil 4» max 


On the Korning of the day of iha accil^nt %h~i b«lt 
vae loo8d« MCid tha pXi^iatiff noticing thie oftlXiSd it to the &t- 
t«ntlon of tJjaf jareor* wIh)*© duty It »fs« to attan?, tc the aatt^ssr, 
&jRd tha b«it waa t&kon off, ebortaned and put back on tb«9 ft«schln« 
undiar tu«« dlrsctloc of tthl« latter pamon, and th« plaintiff was 
Infors-cd tbikt th« c&chlns vus in prop«r shaptt to ufi«. A f^w 
bc>ur« l«it«r a oh:<n^d of kalv«e vae 9ad«. Tbi» pl»lntlff t^atlfied 
tbAl i*t «i tinsa wh«n th«8 (Kachina wac not runnlnp:, hd put hie hand 
in it for th« purpo«« of t«)i Inf out the shsvlngo. It woulo ap- 
p«fcr ti.i«it th«n tho buslt in «;o»a w«.y oh&ngad frojt tha looetj puiisy 
to tfe4 tight pullsy, ;^n.l the Kachinanry »».» thus siartard, Th« 
boy*« right hand wi&e CRtught ftnd t<«diy injured. 

It i» argu«cl th«ro eljouici be no rssoovary in ttii« oaoa 
b«C2uaes uf tha o:^ntributory n»g31geno« of tha •: jfeintif f; thftt 
it wa.s an unfoxsetsisn &Gcli!s»nti th^^.t th« vjrciict *'Ae ag;aijift th«» 
«&alf3st «aight cf ths 3vi-;«ncei int that thai;* v?;^.® «o avlrianca to 
proT3 tlis -ilitgatlons of ti^e laci ri^tior., 

Th-s .jutfetion of c-ntr lb\j tory n4sclip«nc« «'as oua 
ftopsriy Idft ti^> th» jvry, feuo *<3 find no r<»«Kon to re%'ars!i tha 
judgiKsni on tu» rrounci thst thsr^ »-;•.« olaeirly Hbo*>n contributory 
nd£llg,<*nc© on tt^ r'^i't cf ti.e :.i;i.intiff. 

In i}*« 7T.h count of th^ dao] ar?.- tion it wa« oht\r£ad 
teat ths aiifandant neglis'.stntiy aliowetl tl<« driving ball of tiis 
8craj5er to b«j '.'ind rsH.ain iarrorairly iiic^ci '-.nd fitt*d to t'';a pul- 
3aye of thd so tht^t it b«i»o&».*i ani sae iiabis to run froci 
tiifi I'-^we to this ti;ht pulley, nM'i th&t by r«i»Bon th:ii«cf ths 
piaca ehara tt« pi^l^Jtiff A-asi> rsSi-y^irttri to -^orV: baocics «nd «&g 
uneal'tt, etc.; tno in apt ter»-jj tJ't'' *Jffet:t of tl:« aiiagsd nagli- 
faincijf of tb:} cisran-.L-int in thi* raef^ct, s© o;juaing plaintiffs 
injury, iw aset forth, 

Tb'.? (svioduee ftho^e t^s-t tba b<:slt. h^a hn'^n fixao. just 
f rior Vv. tb* accident b.c<i ho bisan r.straeantad to ba in propsr 
condition for runnlag. The r ergon who j:.iiVBf tbie &«;*.ur.aRo« to 

Ji J - i 4i(i. 


pjuintifr ««ic in tL« roe It ion of vica-prlncipal cf tfc . ddfsnd- 
»i\t, *^Q tiilni thare >'.&$ »ufficiant ijvlfiancM of tba n9£ll;-anc« 
chstrt:«o in t^v» pavanth ccnjnt of th;3 decl&ratlor to warrant at 
isaet t«ia eubiJiiealon of th« c«b9 to tha jury. Chicago Scrsw 
Co, V. .©iws, i'ui liJ. 536. Aft«»r cnr«fui p^rueal of th« 
raoora as »i o uiiabia to #5.y th?..t the jury w«e not juetifisd in 
tfaa conclussion th;sit tha djfen(Sg,nt dici noi , ae it« tivty r:*~ 
qulxsJO, furni&h tii« claiflCiff *i efcfdt place to ^ork, 

Cartiin iriis true t ion© given on thd pert of tbe 
pl&intiff eiid to h&va tsan arronaoue. is;aivin{7. ths proco- 
sition Mi-gid by th<i r.laintiff , ihiil Ihi r'.iOord 4oit6 not eho*,ivxjiy th:'t tb^oe i;:«truction«j vir?ire given, *«* hav« c-iir«- 
f\iiiy axsMtinad thoi*« .iriich ara &:>ici to hsvu t s^n fiven, and 
ar© of opinion thbt, takin in connection ^it.h otb-ir ioetruov- 
iony tbijiy ware not drron-aoue. T« finci no ^rror '•;?,« ooisai tL^d 
in tii;« rafu?«i to givs t«o rsquaetad by i Tsn'i'.int, reor in a 
ciiange a-ada in a third, «uich fcH<i to do ?.itl: thsj alicjftrfd aaeusKp- 
ticn ff riek t> thu plaintiff, Csvsn indii-tsctior-* tsinaarad by 
tlie i-ialntiff .^nd t^^nty offdr.;d by th^s cisf«nci£rt *ft$r» given 
without &JT.i{n{Jc-.!snt. <^.:i iire of ths? opinion th;,;! the inetrucl- 
ione aa a whola oorractly .••ovii-ad th= jury f^e to th:i nil«!S -.jf 
la« Ahicb ehocld govern thi.'v in ariivinj^: At th<sir vyroict. 

Tbo judgitdsnt ~ii4 i;a s.ififn:'jd. 

pctoljsr Term, 'l^'lS.lTb; 
41$ - ier"83 



Ap aHunt* ji 


I.A. 547 



Jjult was brought agBlnat tha appalliint and E, 6, 
Orsiati/cia for daaBtiita* on«miit of pi»reon«i.i injvrisa ^nid to have 
ba«n aui»tvinad by tha ftps,«il«« in a colJieion btttwa«n a carriage 
la whicfc ac>-«iX«« wste rialng sna » taaic en id to hava viaan or-rusa 
or controlled by i?pp«j laiit. Th«.rs ^aa s trial t-ttsfor* th«* coiut 
ajui fe jury, tn» jury reRdisrlng. a verdict of not, ruilty ;*t ,^; ainist 
Otmsitiiitat Htiii cf guilty ».f;:«irii?t tbi* fiip:-©;! snt, (:S.s.» bsniijg, fixua 
at tiiS eu«-> of liOCO. Froc a jud£B;!!ut antt?y«id uron 4b» v-rfroict 
thie »pps»i iu prosscutad. 

Thi i'pj isliant, fii.«d. a pj**-; of th* ,;,snarr«.i iiS«ya 
ami s apaciai F'i*a (not «j>betrac. tec) , rtscitiBg th'^: I, bssfovas- and 
at tli«3 tiB.« of th«s cofi.t; lit leg; of tl:i« sup>o»dd g.ri^vecca th* 
ajtp«3 ; 1 H n t or iti-; sar Vj:f4tK' or "?!-«rs not m t h« ussa, 
po864«»«lcin, o^iisir ehip .'no cont-i-ol of a cssrlain w^foii, costvon- 
ly knovui »e 3 trvicJc ^r^gon, ^.w tfts plaifitiff h- fe ;,vbove t.L:ir«of 
allttgea," *tc. It ie to b-a BOtlc«4i3 ilun o-^n-arehip of thss 

hor&«»fe in not >l«ni«d, nor t5'.« Qbiij-ge i« tU'S dacii-riatioa tli^^t 
the Icuratse aru wu£on ««rs tfestr^ in thij s^rvics* of t'ft* apii'tlii-.flt. 
Thi9 pjisa did not put ii: isin..© vh«f cw^iar^hip, 
po«a3S8ion or ofsirittioii of Ui* itietruK-satsst/iitiS© »vhicr; ar^ a,i« 

^iT 10 



nt trl 






■lasTt •» Mt) 

-HJ-o ^no'n -:ea-o " 

-^ ?p:t »i Hsa-t.;.-: 

ig aolassfttoq 

Itg^a to liuv« c«iu««ei thd injury, Jn ac vcrd^snca *lth the rui« now 
thorou^^hly 4«U«bll£h«<i In tblc at tfi. XcHulta v, Lookri(l£«i, 13? 
Ill, 27v, cliiOHG^* ^"» T, Co. y. J*rksi, 3:}7 III. '•£>. W« &r« of 
th^ opinloa,n-,oreover, thst at thd cio«« of ivll tbs ia«tliBOuy 
thsxd niis «Tld«nG« Bufflclunt to wij^rrant Iha jv-ry in TlAciinf that 
tha t*a« atici driver »«r9 under ih« dirsotiou of th« «Lpr«13ftnt, 
Had thi) t Or»sb«« •&» n <t ;>n inJepard«Rt contr^iiotor; that ttis 
Cs/ca l« distlnfulshabld fi ob; ti;t*t of Foster t, .sa<l«»urih-Ko«lsna 
Oo.« xd8 III. 314, cittfd )iy appellant. 

Th« arivsr of the wagon, oallesi .*« a s^itne^s fey tti« 
pliKintiff, taetlfiad th-t at th.s liite of tt«4 j.ctii,>«*nt La ?.«i<.: <iriif- 
itig "Hatii-jr Lvuffcir Co»r.afty»« waron" and that h« wiie la Ibes cunj- 
ploy v?f Orwisbee. In Ma otose-exaifln&tior. by coun«s!!i for ap- 
pallaat he «&« s^ek^d the question ^& to whether he kn.iv<<r to »hoR 
the horeee belonged, itnd anewered, "to Ut, OrreGbes," K« fur- 
ther teatified thyit ha "fot the iuttib^r st thai rieltl^r Ujir.fc»r 
Ctwfany,* and that ha h^x(i rf&aa t*o ^Isli varies; ilixl day. On be- 
Int; called ate a sitneee ty Oratebee, lhs» ii-i.e,.s sltnaea teetified 
thiit faa «ae hiuiine lUBitar for ths H^jttl^r Luff.bsr CoRp&nyi ♦ • 
that nothing «^e e^i<J to hi» bv ^Anyone ae to t^hst he» should do; 
* * ihot h« got hie direotior.fii ae tc 'shera to take the iuKter 
froc. Murtin, the shipriii^ dark of E-ppell^nt; • * tii^'t 
nevxir £■--;»« hiB- say dlr=iotion« Ufe to fsethodii of ioading or cie- 
livery, oi irriy thing of cbv t kind, 

Orsebes t<38tifieci t'.at hs wa@ ^ sid s cert-iin amount 
psr dsty for thrf use i>i th:j tssjs- ana driver, th:At hd o^flad out 

jjxu t^air, ^nd that txie oas -shicii "sse thue -dw-pioyad It* ti;jui-> 
ixif' iuirbsr for «>l.e ap; el'iSint; thift th^s wegon b«iiiloii^'d:d to the i«p- 
peliant, atid th^t Cr»i«;bed h-::i nothiJij, to do >ith th : direction 
to tiis teii«.eter ^a tt> wust the lattar *fi»5 to do it tha y,iri>6,a*tc. 

The 4pj3i;:snt off«re<\ no evia^jncs* in th* cs^d, out 
evlcliino^ *ari t^ken on behalf cf th« defendac* Orir;abed. At '.he 
cioee cf plaintiff •« (»>? eiu e<3 *£) c&ee ap- ellaiit movja tbe court 


t^OJ 1'^s.xLZ ,*i e^--. {&* 


to direct i verdict in it*?, favor. This -wrAs denlad. Tlie motion 
naa not r«n«v« at th« conclu&ilon at tri* t.';>klnp of sll of th* 
8Vld«»nce. On th« cthar hend« tba ^3p>«ilftnt eubrltted oihor In-, 
citruotlone t«B«d upon lt« theory of ths ca«.s, to th« «ffact th»t 
if t>:«» jvry fc«li«v«d Iron th« 9Ylci«nc« (n^otteearlly Inciuolng 
thfet offsr^a b. Ornieba*} ttu-i thia ndgllg^nca «hlob o$^ue4d thte 
»li«p^«ci injury «&«> tb«t no^Il^^ttcca of fione ona <itth«»j: than «& ee;- 
rloy«, a£ant or r«pr«iia&t«itlv9 of thd api:9iiaiit, the v»rddct 

Bhoulci bis not guilty, +j 


Th* yraeent c»8« is in our Jujag'srerit fJi8ting;ui»iiable 
froK Condon v. Schoanf«id, ^.U IlK "3t, in tha f^ict ihit tlidBo 
Instructions t^e.-e tandl«re« by ."praUant. TLiw i« a>-.iidrt«cl by 
ftij.ali«», and, »* think, oorrectly, to conatituta a salvor of 
tba> wotion «hicr. «&« »».u. iolf Co. v, Mcissroh Jiafrig^tsrfttinf Co., 
2ii3 Hi. 4^1. V^a ar* Jileo of tv:(i opinion tL^t thsrt '^as sous 
tsvldcucd, thoujrh elifht, st ths cloee of sp'sllea^e case tand- 
in£ to aetablleh thi f»ct .>f o'*n»9r4>hlr and control. 

%'« srs of th'-i oFinion that : hers s%i-£ ^Ticianc:'* to 
jprots th* a.ji,t:=riiii felisgationiB of ths daoiarstion; th;it tha 
Terdlat ia not agsiinet tb* u^iiif^at -.dight of !:>i6 3?ideacai ^.fet 
tba *ork biting dona by th» t*a.e and *a.gv->n wftp. not bslng dons by 
OriRauaa lt.s.^ an indapen sent tt^nlfttoLor. 

^8 fin*} lie arrondcuti ri.Hrsffi in t,b* Rda>i?if.'iOB of 
8Vid3nc3 aiioii •-;«:.' ehoulvi o*ue« a rsv=;ri5ri.i of ths 4udf:»-*nt. 

Tb« ju;ig;»«nt aill ts) -.-/.f irft-^ci. 



78 - 18619. 


Defendart tn Error, ) JskROR to 


, __.^^ JOfiN L. BOL»!, / OF OHICAOO. 

f v\ Plaintiff In Error. /J 

:^ / 184I.A. 569 

[^ ^>^ PRESIDIKG ''. / 

^4;< MK.^JUJi'IOis; hltQH DELlVmi'^ THii: OPIfTION OF THE GOORT. 

ay this writ of error tho plaintiff In error (herein- 
V Tfcftor called the defendant) eeoka to reverse a Judf roent ren- 
dered against Iilrn for $B5B,70 after a Jury trial in the iunl- 
^ olpal court. The plnlntlff 'a »tttteoent of olalir; as araended 
1^:^ w&B for tho value of work and labor perforraed by the plaintiff 
"^ as a carpenter and foreman for the defendant for certain periods 
of time therein stated. Tho defendant's affidavit of jaerlts 
atateo that plaintiff did not work for defendant all of the time 
stated in the plaintiff's dtater.ent of clain, and asserts that 
settlenentG were made fror? tirie to tiise ond that the plaintiff 
was paid in full. It appears from the evidence thixt the plain- 
tiff was ©raployed by tho cl ©fondant aa a carpent-.r fu^d to super- 
intend tho erection of certain houses which defendant »a3 build- 
ing. There is eorae slight dlaput© ivo to the tema ujion wViich 
the plaintiff was eaployed, the plaintiff claimirg that thw ie- 
fendar.t agreed to pay hln: "bettor than carpenter's wages", while 
the defendant toutified that he af:reed to pay carpenter's wages 
and al«o to "rerieRber him (plaintiff) in a substantial way out 
of the profits". i The plaintiff teatlfiod thjifc carpenter's wagoo at 
the tine in question «ero from 50 to r^F- cents an hour, and that 

the reaaonable valxie of hi a services was |50 a week. The only 

real dispute iry^evidonce arioes over the question of payment. Yia 

think the evidence is clear that during the first fotjr weeks of 

• d Vl 

■ >'4[ SAW 

-wTi fln»* nvij' <)-::p al w^i 

the plaintiff's onployraont th« d«f»ridart hltnaelf paid th» wages 
of the workr.en, not including the plaintiff. The evidonoe io 
alao clear that during the succeeding 28 weeks, eftd aloo during 
a later period of 11 1/2 weeks, the plaintiff submitted to the 
deferdant at the end of each week a atatement of the amount due 
to the workraen and for materials, including. In most oases, an 
iten of ;;10 weekly on account of hio own aorvloeej that upon re- 
oelvln;;^ theoe statements, the defendant drew hi a check to the 
order of the plaintiff for an araoiint which wao sometimes a little 
more and aometlraes a little leas than the araount of the atatetaontf 
that plaintiff depooited these checks to hia o*m accourt and paid 
the ano\inta shown on the stateiaents out of funds so received fron 
the deferKiant, Upon the trial, the plaintiff offered in evidence 
copies of all theae statentents. They show that during; the periods 
above stated (excluding the first four weeks, during wi^iich the 
defendant himself paid the bills) the plaintiff paid out, to ethers 
than hlnself, for wages, labor and ssatorials, the sum of !^421P.fi5. 
Hia entries of credits on the same staterriente show that he re- 
ceived from the defendant, during the same p-.riods, the sum of 
t4SG0, leavinr, a balance to defendant's cre<lit of i>l4l,A5, ?h© 
plaintiff admitted that in addition to the credits ahown c^- hio 
statements, he had received |7r in cash sjvl $1003,30 in materiala 
taken "by him at an agreed value. Defendant alao produced and 
offered in evidence six checks, aggregating l;514.74, which the 
plaintiff admitted he received but which were not nhotm aw credits 
on his otatenoT^ts. I/ofenlant was entitled, imaer the evMer'co, 
to have credit for these additional items, rhess iter^a, added 
to the balance shown tey the otatei^ients, make the total credits 
anjount to -$^37,49. Subtracting; this total from the ainount shown 
by the evidence to bo the value of the plaintiff's services (#30 

kttiq « 

q i'ht4*ii 

■ae 'io ij<f^ 

-ii.,i Vtio 

.*tfu» a%>' 

»iiJ ^ 


a week for 43 l/8 weeks) Itsavea a balance hw to the plaintiff 
of 1567.51, TO that extent, we think the verdlot of the Jury 
l3 fully eupported by tho ovidenoe. Ab to the exceae of $101.19 
we think the verdict ia oontr .ry to the evidence. 

It l9 urged that the court ©rrod in instructing- the 
Jury. For the purpose of ra&king thla objection couneel for plain- 
tiff in error has divided the oral ohar/j^e of the trial court into 
eepivrate, numbered paragrapha. This method of considering oral 
in3truotlor.Q cannot be adopted. The instruotiona lauet bo consider- 
ed together and not subdivided or aeparated, one paraprpaph from 
the other. In Feoararo v. Halber^ , 246 111. 95, It .yaa hold that 
an exception to an oral di'-xrgo inuet point out apaclfioally th<3 
portion of the oJiarge objected to, and that this rule obtains in 
all cases where oral inatructiona have been given, "and ia nec- 
essary to prevent inadvertent errors" . At the tiin^ the oral 
charge was pronounced, the only obje ;tion raised was that ^tha 
court has not instructed the Ji*ry as to tho basis of recovery 
upon the defendant's theory of the suit; If he was to have any 
definite account, to get fifty-fivo cents an hour, Ard also, as 
to the burden of proof on tho basis cf paynent". Ai o the fJ.rst 
of these objections, we think the charge of tho court fairly 
placed befcro the Jury the ieeuoa nmdo by tho plaintiff's state- 
went cf claijfl ard the defendant's affidavit of nterits. As to 
that portion of the cr<arge roferrint; to tlie Inarden of proof as 
to tho dofonae of payisont, v*o think it ia in accord with the 
authorities in oaoots where pajrment 1~^ tho oolo defence. i; on?^ell 
V, vildor, 67 111. 3i27. The defendant did not dlapute th© «n- 
ployner.t of the plaintiff, nor did he offer any ©vi^ionce tending 
to prove that tlm plaintiff's »ork wao not worth ,f30 a week. 
While the defendant's ovidonce ai. to the ten-a upon «Yh5ch the 
plaintiff waa employed its not precisely the oamo at? that of the 

M a\l "^ -lOl 

"Its 9W 

plaintifi*, the different© la y&ry alight, ami the logal ©ffect la 
practically th» Bane, under th® facta shown by tho avlclenoo. 

It its ttloo urged that tho oourt erred In por?T!lttinp, tho 
wife of th« plaintiff to tOMtify, Tha plaintiff testified that 
hla wife, en sevaral oooiiBiono, ooliectod monay for him froti tha 
defondiint, and tho wlfa*a whole avlder.aa ralatod to a oonveraatiim 
with the defandant conoemlng tb© plaintiff »a aooount, w© thlnJk 
thora waa no error in tlie adialasion of thia taotinony* 

Upon the whole raoord, and aftor ti oarsful atudy of tho 
avldenca, we think no error wa« oonmltted, prejudicial to tlie 
plaintiff in error, sxoopt as to ths ajsount of the verdlot. That 
error oan be ourad by a raraittitur. If, thai^eforo, tlio daferdcmt 
in error will, within tan day^ froa the date of the flllnri of thia 
opinio*;, file heraLu ti. pe?nlttltur of |1G1.19, tho judgttent for 
the remainder, t»167,5l, erlll be afflr?ned; othorwiao tho judfsnect 
ttill be ro varied and th?^ o^iua© rerea^idad. 

^er Term, icig; jy. 

1^0 : 
218 - 18677. 

JK?j:x>n, QOj^artrmra, and doing 

/S4I.A. 570 

Dofondartts In ICnlKT, ) 


) MiiKicipAL aofflur 

▼«• / ) 

OP csiia&Go, 

/ ) 


Plaintiff ii^ ETTor, ) 




Plaintiff o, who ar© real estate bi^sfeora in Ohicago, 
recovered a Judj^nsent against Itiotsae Oonran, the ddfendart, 
for |*360 ccHsal onions oiirned In securing a purohaaer for cer- 
tain propoirty belorgin^ to the defendlant* rha ©vid«ice shows 
that plaintiffs found a purohaeer rmned Keilly, with shora the 
defendant entered into a arrltten contract. 3f the terE?s of 
this oontraot, defet^lant agreed to convey his property to Reilly 
at a stat©<J oonalderation of §35,000, ©ubjeot to enoTJF4>ranO06 
of $1*7, 000, ar^ in oor.s 5 derail oj> thereof, Reilly agreed to 
convey to the defendart, at a atated oonaider&tion of A^,^0, 
suhjoot to an enoirabr^ance of 0250."!, a tract of larA described 
eo follows? •The northeast comer of Eobey street and aontrc)©© 
boulevard, a lot or ptircel of .ground 10'' oy 15S feet (®# or !•) 
together arith all laproveKSGnts tliereon*. Before sl/jning this 
contract, tlte deforaiant went upon the property snd looked It 
over. He was told by the plaintiff's salee-^^n that ti"^ diraen- 
slons of the lot were 100 feet on Robe^ street and 152 feet on 
Montrose iioulevard. Rellly testified that h© told the salesrmn 
and the defendant that theie sere Uie diraer slcns of hla property. 
He also teatiflod that at the tirae he aald this, a^ at the 
tlse tm sj<g;ned the contract, he believed the Btat^tsert waa true; 
that he •boug^it it for that at-d sold it for that,* ant! that ho 
had owned the property since 18B3. There s&s a board fence on 





tho north aido of th» property, an alley on ths oast, and 
there were oenent aidewalka on the acuth and ireat ulden of 
the lot» The dofofidant test lined that after the contraot was 
signed, he meaaured the lot «iUi a steel tape line and die- 
oovered that the frontage on ifobey a tree t aras only 02 feet In- 
stead of 100 feet, as he t^d been told* Ke reported his dla- 
oorery to iiellly and aftor mtkini^ ai^. unsvtcoessful attajnpt to 
induce KeHly to nako sone oor.ceaaior. in prioe on that account, 
he deeXinod to carry out his port of the contract. Plaintiffs 
sued hiia for ooarfiiasicaio on the thenry that their ca^wlasions 
were oamod when the contract was signed. Defendant filed an 
affidavit of raerlts, claiming that the plaintiffs faiiioly and 
fraudulently repreeontad the pz^sparty of tho jjurchaeer to lio of 
larger diisenaicns that It was in fact. Upon the trial, however, 
defendant's ooiunsel abandon«jd this def^is©, adfaitt»d tht t^^0re 
was no proof of fraijd or fi^tsiuiemt reproaentat'ona, a^ then 
sdvajicod the claira that the contrtiot was not ©n_fc«roei4bls because 
entejred into xmder a autual mistake as to a nsat^rlal fact* To 
aiipport thla theory* he oftereo. to show, in addition to tli© facts 
abovs stated, that the defendant had eossp<ite<l the value of Uie 
Reilly lot at ;i75 a foot on Bobey street, that he had ar archi- 
tect prepare plans for a store and flat building I0f> by 15£ fset 
in size, anfi otlmr similar facts, which, h© olaiisad, !::&d a ten- 
deitoy to prove that defenda^^t had aigj^.ed the contract under a 
ffiiata?^® as to tha arsount of frontage on Rofeay street. 

Defendant* a oouaisel concedes the rula to b© that a 
real estat® broker, employ sci. to secure a purchaser for property, 
has earned Ms cotamlaaions vth&n he finds a btayer who is accepted 
by the seller and with wiKssa th*? sellor enters into a valid and 
enforceable contract, evtm though tfse contract b@ aftorw«ird 
oanosllS'l or abandoned through no fault of tho broker, iTilacn 


JUi ciii i«j «i*«l OOX to t 

i^c 'r ,ac o^ xlll«{i 90Ubrti 

V ■- J V A 

V. HaouT!, 1>«5 111. 510; --jpa c v. r:yar>^ 2-10 111* ?,91. Fttit It 
l8 iirs«?d that «h<(}re th» pi^rchaaor and B«il«r are RJUtimlly nla- 
ta5ren as to a ottterlal fact, the contract lo not erforooable. 
V/e do not thlr* tJw.t prlnciplo ie applioabl« to the facta of 
thle oas^. The rule is well settled thut a court of 1 v* haa no 
power to oonrect a ralat&ke and reform a ^ntraot. viuch a power 
rests alone In a court of equity, axmntnghegB v. ^r&rm, ^^ 111, 
62, 64} aagls i<-lr>s ina* Co, v. Jno. i>pry Lumber Cc.^ 1S8 111, 
App. 609, 611, In the da»se last olted, aiiit was brou^-jrit by the 
luEJber oonptuiy on an ineuranoe policy whlc^i deooribed the property 
Inauti-ed aa ■Lumber, lath, shingles • ♦ or otJi«r ssorohandiae ^ -» » 
contained in their yard, or In buildings, aheds, or oars on traoke 
in said yard, situated on the eaut Hide of Asiiland Avomie, extend- 
ing north fiRom the west brur<oh of the south l»^noh of the *%loa@o 
Kiver.* The poiioy c- ntalned a ^arrarrty by ^e asmarecl that *a 
clear spao© of 65 feet shall b© maintained between luraber arsi 
siill and addStioT-i or south.* It '*jaa contended that any luffib«» 
pile4 »ithin the 35 feet space %hu& desoritoed was not Interd^ to 
be covers! by tlie poiioy and that the lai^guage uaed ir the policy, 
apparently ooverinc; all IY,Q pr-operty in the lu!?iber yard, was a 
raiotake; and evidence was introduced upon that theory. As to 
tills contention tlie court, by }ir. Justice .uiarss, said: *To dis- 
ouse t'':is evidence «otJLld be a aere vaote of ti*^, for the res^json 
that a corjTt of law has no jurisdiction to correct ralstalces in 
written contracts. In a la* court the parties adli be held bound 
by the written contract, tlie ^?ord8 of ^ilch «111 be t<iVsn in their 
ordinary acceptati<m, and «hat the -zrords nean alll be held to be 
ocnciusive of t^^ intention of Uie parties •* 

By the terine of the contract offered In evidenoe, sl'vi-*X(? 
tc the sords thereof tlieir ordinary acceptation, Reilly agreed 
tc convey to defersiant "a lot or parcel of ground 100 by if>2 feet 

-«- aJw£»*i 

::roi']: ':-:.-r :4^1 

(n. or i.)" looatsd at the northoast oorrtor of two nar^o'l atreets. 
It ia conoodod that the phra»o "m, or 1." is an abbreviate 1 form 
of the Aords ■noro or lesa," rho contract ivlao providoa thut de- 
fondant shall fiimiah an abstract of title "ahowln/' good and auf- 
ficiont title at date or thia oontraot in the respective p^irtlea 
hereto, to U^e property hereby agreed to be conveyed." Taking 
these clauaoB together, the natural raeanlr;^ cf the lav^.jrxsa.^e era- 
ployed lo thtit lie illy agireed to convey a lot cv»ned by him at tho 
date of the contract, v?hioh waa located at the corner mertioned 
/ and was approximately of tho diraenoiona stated. "The worda *noro 
or leas' « *f » aa applied to quantity ?* -^ > art* to he ccrstruod 
as qualifyinr, a repraeertatior; or statement oi' an abaoltite or 
definite aniount, ao that neither party to a contract can avoid 
it or act it aside by reason of any deficiency or surplus ocoaaion- 
Qd by no fra'ud or want of good faith, if there is a. reasonable ap- 
proximation to the quantity specifically stipulated in the con- 
tract." 1 .each on ?lod9m La..; of Oontraota, ;.-eo. 83, p. 108. 
Therefore, the v;;>e of the wortls "nore or less* in this contract 
cannot be construed as an afSiaiirance that tl'f? trtict contain d pr©- 
oisGly 100 feet of frontufj:w on i obey stroet, but, on the nontrary, 
the use of thio phraee sshows that the 9xact nur;ber of feet \?au r;ot 
certainly and definitely knovsn to either party at the tine the 
contract was entered into, art! that both parties tsoto willing, 
s'ithif reasonable limits, to abide by the aotua.1 neaBuranents, 
■sh&n ascertained. Tho ciaiEi orlf':inaily mwi© by defandant tha,t 
the otat©n?ent of quantity was fraudulently made, having been aban- 
doned on thfc trial, and there ooing l^o evidence of any .va^^ of 
good faith, it follows thi:.t tho contract was enforceable in a 
court of la.? according to its terras, and therefore, that tho plain- 
tiffs wore entitled to their ooHorjissions ?ihen tho contract stab 


The Judgment of the Municipal court in sffirnod. 

;ui.^« itiff" jtiiV: 

.<j 7 or. J 

i! i - C'C 

ccer isrm, 1212. Uo." 
a34 - 18,726. 

1 ^ ' ^ i.A. t> 1 5 


(& Corporation), ) ERROR 10 

Defendant in Sxvpr, ) 


▼•• / ) 



Plaintiff in ferror, ) 



By this writ of error It id sought to reverse a Judg- 

?. Bwnt entered in the Munioipal court in favor of the def endfait 

t In error for $586. 15, being the atmount, arith interest, of a 

prcrsiasory rote givoi by Heeveo to the Oreer-Wilkinscm Lutaber Octn^ 
' pany in February, ISll. The note upon which suit was brought is 
i a nots given in renewal of anotlisr noto for the saste anoitnt, dat- 
^ ed In April, 1910. The cirounwtanoeB laider whic^ the orijE^inal 
note waa ^Iven fom the basia of the defense to the note, it ap- 
pofijrs that in 1909 the defendant Keevea ©sployed one Plaatett, a 
contractor, to build a frarae house, to cost $1200, upon a lot owr- 
ed by IJeeves in peahroke, Illinois. Plaakett rosided in J'oroeco, 
Indiana, and purchased all the raatarial for the houao, except 
the paint, fron the plaintifT, (Jroer-Wilklnson Lunsber Go. A 
house wa3 oonstruoted by Plaakett, but tha defendant Nt-fe'/eg re- 
fused to accept the houae as a compliance vsith the contract, on 
the ground that it did not oonfors-5 to tlie spool float lens, vth&ti 
Plaakett demanded pay for tho house Keeves refused to ptiy for it 
and offered Plaskett the privilege of reTeoving it. In April, 
IP 10, a Kan, who aaid ho represented the plaintiff, presented 
a bill to Neevea for limber piarcha&od by Plaakett which had been 
put into the houas. Heeves declined to pay, upon the ground 
that the debt wao not his but waa Plaakatt*3. The repres^itative 

.BLiT,3I - »*S 

' '2iJ tXW^i?' V • .i-:yi,<. d w 1 '^ iV - *. 

of the plaintiff cialta&d. that Keevoa was liable under th« In- 
diana Lion Law. Heev«s told him that th« Ililroia Lien Lav 
waa different frore the Indiana law and th&t he, Keev«o, was not 
liable. The man went'atr&y and r^tumad several days Ititer .«lth 
& laarysr. They adRitted the plaintiff had no claira under the 
Illinois Lien Law, but Uiey insisted that defendajRt ouf^ht to 
pay for the lumber because it went into hie houue and ha had the 
b^:iefit of it. Keevos testified; "W© had considerable conversation 
on that subject. I fcold him the house was not in aooordano© ^th 
the contract, that it was of no eervico to f?4>, and wan net jshat 
i wanted; that 1 had told Plaskett to take the houae offj smd 
the contractor and eub--con tractor could divide the businea^^ any 
way they aacr fit." Heevaa further teatified, ho-^-ever, th-it he 
finally agreed to ^ivo a note to tne plaintiff for $642.34, 
wliioh wag over p^O less than wa» claiaed by t^jo plaintiff, a«d 
that he paid interest on thia net© until the renewal rota ^as 

It is instated that there was no valid consideration for 
the original note, and hence there was no oonsiderjitlon for the 
note sued on. It ia a well-aettleu principle that "the coEpi'cnise 
of a doubtful right, though it afterwards turns out ths right is 
on the other side, where there ia rsoither actual nor conatructlve 
fraud, and the parties act in gcocl faith, «ith full knowled^'e of 
the facta, ia a sufficient consideration to support a promise.* 
ilcaBey^:a.r v. J arvi s , 79 111. SIB, 3i>2. To the 3a:ne effect are 
AdafTiS ^ V. Cro'^i Goal A Tow Co., 199: ill, 4>1fj, 450? Hulae v. Hulae, 
155 111. App. MS, 346. Thers is no pretonse in this case of any 
actual or constructive fraud; arsd sc far as the evidence shows, 
the partiea acted in r.ood faith, artth full knowl0vl,^,o of the facta. 
At the tine the original note was ^'-.iven, th@ plaintiff ^aa asaert- 
inz a claim against the defendant, rho defendant denied the valid- 

.'atii oiiS bid aev:. xtAl^ 

yes veirmrt*^ t»M ^jMi'^new i*»L{n ax$T •^i<i«Jt.i 

■:i*^ sav0d» mil io aIl««t*U 

; Li.**i'i\ :•>© 'U> 

. v«j tti£i4 vtwi > Iw 4B i^i 


Ity of the olaiin, but notwithstanding thut fact, he stttiod 

ar^ oomproiaiaed tho plaintiff's claiiG af;aint»t him by giving his 
note for part of th« ajnount olainsad to be dixs fror hire, l?hethor 
tlie plaintiff could have recovered th«s jiraoxant of ito olais, in an 
action brought thereon agalnat the deforaiant, ia iramatorial, if 
the olalra waa honestly E»d©, ^oKinl ey v. Wat kins, 13 111. 140. 
in the quaint la' gua^e of an Indiana cade, quoted in iloneyrian v. 
Jarvia, supra, the defendant "conotituted hiroaolf a judge in hia 
own cause and decided againat himaslf. We art* of opinion that the 
weight of authority in, that he oaTiHOt no*? be heard to reverae his 
own JjudjfTiont." 

The Judf5»ant of the Municipal Court will bo aff Irsed, 


-'•o rt»o 

3r TeVffl,- 1912. ITo/ / 

346 «- ia/'13, / 

In the isattor of the petition / 1R4T*A«d96 

of JoH?i JACOB »iEY::Oii, lirr»«5t«d/ Jy«-' -^ a.ois.« %^ ^ \j 

at the suit of BiaxniA KUR2» i ) APPEAL FROM 

On Appeal of JOHH JACOB y.AtI-3t, J 




\, Appollde, 

\ / 



tm^\}m-kxi TifK opiKioii of tee court. 

A jtid^sent was rendei-ed in lan aotior for alander, i» 
th« Circuit Court of Cook County, in favor of Bertha Yxxcz 
&$fi.iT.>i% John Jacob i.ay«r« Th« declaration In that caa© octi- 
siated of one ooimt, and olmr^r.od timt >Soyer, "contrivir^ a?^ 
awiioiotisly intendirig to injrap© the plaintiff ai-td bring bor in- 
to public 3oa?^dal ard diagraoc," falsely ancl salioiously, §134 
tho presanoe arsd heuring of divors persons, opoVe the follow'-. 
in^ arords of aa^ cor.oemlrjg the pialritlff: *Thl3 woman Ims 
stoldn tho «atoh and ohiiin belonf ir??^ to ny son," liMy&r dofNault- 
«d, arid a gcrs<*ral vordiot, firsling hi?!t ^lity sjrid asseaiiT^r. th« 
plaintiff's daraaKes at |500, was r«ti3m64. ?;'sy@r was ar2*©«t©d 
upon a capla-i a^i a&tlgfaoiendm , Issuod iJpK:.-ri the JucigEsent, and 
filed his petiticHi in the Gciinty Court for a diaohHrge lander 

th© Inaclvsnt Debtors' ACt, It? that aourt, h© offered ?^o prove, 

by evidsnoo dahora^ the record, a tb« w^orda uttorod %3rs not ut- 
tered r.alioioualy; but the court declined to hesx any jjuch 
evidence, upon tVie ground that the question v^etli^r r.alioe was 
ths gist of the action raust be deterrnlned solely frorz tba record 
in the ulander euit. Thereupon, after exatain-ition of sikA 
record, th^s court held that taalice wai? the jriat of the aoticm 
for alander aiid denied the petition .for a discharee, T'nc question 

■P-CIS »xitiij^Xwj. . 


Involved in this appeal is whether that ruling waa correct 
under the oircuisstanoea above related. 

In Jemberg v« f^ixt r^i) 111, iib4p th« court. In stat- 
ing tlift prinoiples govemln,?; suoh oases, said (p.g'?'?)? "l^© 
forsior jiKi^jEjent *a« oonolusive as to ovary siatter propsrly rwiA 
nec©ao-:,rlly at lasue In tlw aotion, and XL XL M^pettjp^&a tlQ^ %h§ 
pleodln^^a tiiat sa&lioe ims the s^^&t of the entire aotlon, the 
doctrine of rea jiadiogi^^ta would apply, in mich a oa^^te, ^ inapec^ion 
of the reoord gould ooaolualycly eatabliah that thd question of 
Ei&Iles sraa aottI«^ in the fomar suit, &reX havin,?; been onoQ do- 
terjnlned tlie judg?aOT!t would be an effectual bar to any fta'ther 
dispute of thi!.t tpiestion between tha parties." (Italics ours.) 

In the early oaae of ^oKee v. Ingalla, 4 Soass. SO, it 
ii aald of an aotior. for slander (p, ?3): * 0ie ap«aking of 
actiorabls words i.-s evidence of ssalioe. Hallos is ths g^iat of 
this aotion.* 

^^ '^.liaer v. irubarJs:,, IS 111, iffl, wMch waa alec an 
action for slander, the rorde eharged to have been spofeen were 
that the plaintiff "hai stolen a ateer* b*lor:ginf to the de- 
feruiant, arvi tho general issue, only, wfu^ plaade<i, Tlie ootirt 
said (p. :-.*74); "Halio© is the glat of the &<3tlon of ^-inder. 
But the ter^. »jaalloe* h&s & two-fold signifioatlon, T>i©re Is 
r.&lioe in law, &a ssell &a malic© in fact, in th(* forraer and 
legal aenBe, it si^iifios a «ron^ful act, intentionally done, 
'«flth<»it any Justifioatiiai or excuse, Ir tlie latter asid popular 
afense, it raoana ill-^-ill toaarda a particular per»on; in oth«r 
words, an aotual int^^.tion to injure or defane Mm," Applying ., 
that diatlnction to th« oae© then before it, the court concluded 
(p, ^&)i *In thia ca^e, the sorda were actionable in tho ra sclyeaji^ 
and they sez»0 not pufcliah^d imaer oircaiiaetancea that afforded 
any excuse or juatifieatlon to tlse dafj>ndant. Hf aas theri^foro 

or '^ 

fv ft.' 


ll^^ble f&p the o<m»©<|U«nc9a, unleaj the plaintiff had oora- 
Biltted the oricw of l&rcsny. And hs did not bj: Ms Tfeadlnj^.a 
oi'^or to prove tba proof of thf.? char.'ie. i"h« axlet«no« of 
»alic« in i'a.ot wae net n€a«3:»ary to maintair the action, rho 
laif raised th« premi!aptlor7 of »alle«^ and that presumption wr3 
conolusSva.* (It&llos cur«, ) 

Krc:^' theae ddoislona* vr« doduoo the rule thiit in 
ftoticna for BlesKior If the «orda charged to h&vs be«n f&la«o 
ly utterdd ar*^ not aotlon&bl© per s©^ it i» neoeaaai^ to &r9r 
snd proYo ffiallo« In f&ot, but If th«y aro p&r s» aotionable, 
thor the law oonoluaively la^liaa isaXlao fro® the use of such 
words. If falB© and utt«ro=i witJiout le.f,al Justl float lors or 
oxousej and th«vt in »ltl\#r o&se, ntttlioo is an e:>8ential 
eiejnert of the cause of aotlon, or In other »orda. Is the 
gl9t of the action. In this caro, tho sorda ohargsd to Imv© 
been used w»r*j <iationable per aa » lilKs^r v, Eubsa^k, supra; 
Millsr ▼. Jolirtaon. 79 111. 50; ^tiaster v. Pltol^^an, is>? 111. 
2o0» That t?i«y ffei*? : poker by Meyer oora>emt?tg ii-srtha Kurz 
and thu-t t:4ay were false, w«re s^l^tted by tha default; tend 
that they a^ere sialioiouely uttered is oonciuslvely prssuEsed 
from the faetn tlrua adraitted ar;d f^rois th^ abaenee of any plea 
of justlficatior or excuse* H^roe it appeitrs froc; an in- 
spect ion of the reoord ir? the Circuit -Jaurt oase> that the 
verdict a'aa reni>onalv© to the issues preaented and that the 
iBsue of ssalioe tfa^s properly arsl neoeesarily preeor.ted and 
determined adversely to yeyer in that oaao. It follows ths-t 
the trial court oorrectly iialed thiit estrlnsio evidsroo upon 
those issues waa ir.adialsalbl^ In the Uounty Jourt upon the 
petition of lioyer for a disoharfTO, and its jindgrawit will 
therefore be affinned. 



1. ftjfc •OlI'JC! 



oer Tern], 1D12. Fq. 
114 - 186«5« 



Def aidant In Error, ) ^^RRCR TO 


)/ nni] 


Plaintiff In Error. 

/ 184I.A.597 


Defondant In error* plaintiff beloiP, corrK»nc«d an 
action of the fourth claas In tl^ •'*unloipal Jourt of Chicago 
to re«>rer of plaintiff In arrpv, defendant below, the sum 
of |5W olalned to be due her bn a polioy of insurance in ^loh 
ahe was nan^ed aa benof ioiary* and "sihlch had been issued by de- 
fendant under date of >tarch 1, lC>?>e, on the life of Patrick i!c 
Laiighlln, her huaband, who died on January 9, 1>>11. One of the 
provlslona of the polioy, or certificate of ins^sranoe, was that 
any aeaber who failed to laake his racmthly pa^r^snta in full on 
#r before the last day of the n«>nth in which a ie-ry yas rnade, 
would "stand ausperded from all the rights and bengfits of the 
Mortuary vvavi without further notice,® The defense was Uiat the 
irsaur^ had failed to raake the IToveaber and Deconber, 1. 10, pa.y- 
B«)t3 on the policy. Use oa«se vaa tried beforo a Jury who re- 
tximed a verdict for plaintiff for #500, upon which verdict the 
oourt entered the Judgaent whidfi defondjimt by tliis ?frit seeks 
to reverao. 

On© sonth prior to th« isauanoe of the policy in question, 
to-sfit, on Pijbruary 1, 1908, ths def'^miant hsA issued a like 
polioy for 11500 on the life of aaid ?atrio>^ 'JoLatichlin. Pldn- 
tiff was also nasjed as beneficiary iji this policy arxl ehe rsade 
the monthly paysonta on bo>h policies, (which assounted to |1.97 
an the $1500 policy and -36 cents on the polioy in question) in 
addition to paying the nonthly .lues of the insured, arj:-ou;;ting to 



« V 

-jz-rati' «« tfen^:t Qui ^J 

q ^'od no 93ttam%mi %JUiiiUM exU 


25 osnto, to the local lodge* jliltliou^ it was th© duty of the 
secretary of the looal lodge to reoelve ail pjo?ithly paya^^ts 
and r-cnthly dues, plaintiff at first aade paycssnto to one J. H. 
Price, ari irvsuranoe solicitor or orgaiiiaer tn defenaant's eisploy, 
to whcm sBld secretory a^netissea guve blaak: for-^s of receipts 
for the purpoa« of ?=akln^ collect ions, and frors »ho53 Ifiie accepted 
coUoationa. Plaintiff teaiifled that she raade various payoenta 
to Price at different tinea frcEi July, 1.^08 to ^arch, I'Jio, taking 
a receipt for the ^^oney paid; that three of ttxeaei receipta <irere 
signed by isaid aeorotary, aod Uiat 10 reoeipte, amounting i.o 
f3D.04, were ai^sned by Price, hb telling plaintiff each tiee that 
ahdCB)^ a certain eua on both policies. ';^hese t&n receipts sign- 
ed by Price did not ispecify the proportionate as^nint due on each 
policy, and contained dome superfluous printed siatter. In addi- 
ticwx to thea© 13 rscelpta plaintiff Introduced 3 otJier receipts 
signed by a&ld a^cx^tary. Iiiaei^ch aa aaid dooretary testified 
that 16 payioonta ty plaintiff had be*ii reported to her by Price, 
it ia a fair inference, we think, tiiat Price turned in ail sioreys 
to defendant paid by plaintiff, the defendeuit offej*ed no evidence 
to the contrary. Plaintiff furtlifer teatiflffd that tri© last pay- 
rssnt !5ad© by her to Price wa.A sade during ^aroJ^ i;'iC, at shi<^ 
tiiae Price told hor that Uie |1500 policy had be«i forfeited, 
arvA ho further told hor that all ssoniea paid to hira by plaintiff 
had been tum«Kl over to the def^mdant. After the death of the 
insured, plaintiff recei-ffed a Isttar frctn th© district sanai^er 
of defendant inforsilng her that tho last payisent made on aaid 
flSOO policy was rsade •for the r?»onth of August, 1909, and he 
was suspended froK any benefit for failure to pay for t?ie r^nth 
of iiept9!sbt*r on the flrat day of Cotobsr , ii>0^ , since rfhidi tiae 
the policy has been out of benefit," 

a«««« wij»« Wtuf^Mr ^ 

ton Jqlo t««l £. 

-■4 's<i ix . ' . ■ •- 

■ Ml « i»l :; 


Aftor MivzN^, 1910, plaintiff paid no sso««y to Pfio« 
or fiffiy other collector, but was in the habit of sendinc to 
th© defendant •a local office a raoney orddr and a receipt card, 
which oaxTd v&a returned to her uft(.r the pnymmt had been ont^r** 
ed Uiereon* Thia card er^Offod that payisonts had been xsnAe by her 
caaly caa the $600 policy in q^eatlon» ooveri»vT the laontha of 
April, I? 10, to October* 1910, incluelva. It Is evident frors 
thia Uiat plaintiff, aftor receiving; tr»« notice frees Price of 
the forfeiture of eaid #1500 policy, conaidered tiis maim aa hav- 
ing booK forft>itod« Plaintiff toe ti fled that on January 3, 1911, 
tturee days before Uid death of h^r Imsbond, aJ^e gave h^^r b later 
#5 tfith Wiiioh to Goako puyni^^ta oil the aaid policy, ar^ also on 
her brother's policy ^ of i^iah plaintiff was also th© b«nofiolajry, 
on the day after aaid huabar^l'a death, and before the defendant 
h^id been notified thereof, plaintiff's aald slater ^uie a payment 
at defendant's local office of ^i:.7S on the policy In question, 
ooverinjg ti';e arsount due theratas for ail asaesas^Rta arKi dues for 
the raonUis of Boveaber ajyi Dec^aber, 1910, and Jaratary, is* 11. 
iifttsr proof of death had been made the deforciant refus&d to pay 
th& aeioiant of the policy <m the grour^ t>iat tlie rsojithiy pays^nta 
and duea for aald aonths of :-ove!sber and iiocesujor h*«i not h&tm. 
rmde in tieae. Durini; the raon th of Janu^iry, Ti'll, tha soorotary 
of the local lodge tendered to plaintiff the said &im of |2,'?S, 
which plaintiff r^fuaed to accept. Said secretary and an assist- 
ant teatlfled that in March, leil, thsy again tondersd eaid mm 
to plaint jff and that plaintiff accepted th© noney. Plaintiff 
dani«*ti thia* 

ihe evidence tends ic show that, aftor the -1500 policy 
had been in fact forfeited ty defendant biat before plaintiff had 
lmcal©d|';e of a<*oh forfeiture, plaintiff paid Pries about |l«? nK5r© 
than saa neceseary to o^ke all necessary x>ayEJent3 on th© |500 
policy? that she did this under ths belief that aha was rmtlng 

•OidX «do-UftM ie4lA 
rt» tad o^ MMn0»w sMT lartAO t^tilm 

toe mia 

4 tari# 9iM 4sdi i\i>. 

payraente on hotii po^loiea; th&t ikft^r she waa notified by Price 
of th© forfeiture of aaid :slftOO polloy ah© aoijuioacecl therein; 
ard that at the tinie of the death of Patrick ■oLaughlln, notwith- 
stfmdins the fact that the aaaeaainenta on the $500 policy for the 
Rontha of !(ov«c»ber and Deooiaber, 1910, had not been paid by her 
during said rcontha, aJie had norey to her oredit in the }i«nda of 
defei«l&nt oor.siderftbly in ezoeua of the aBiour.t neceBsary to pay 
all a&Beaener.ta for said nontha on s&id $500 poiioy<. 

/ii'ter ojireful cw-slder&tion »« ImTS roaohed the ocnolu- 
s.lcss thet, imdor the aopsev^mt 'jnumjal faoti5 c» diaolosed by this 
record, the ooiirt did not err in eirtering jisii.i;3aei!vt en t!i<3 vsrdiot. 
• l-'orf ei turea are abhorrent to the laa." ( joyerdale v. Royad Area- 
Hua, 1S5 111, 91, lOlj iCtiriford Firt? Ina , ^^c, v, i&Xeii, ^A ili« 
lo4, l?-0,) And *th3 button of* uho.iing a failure to pay uaefcasT^enta 
froK which failure a forfeiture is claiKSd to hixve ariser is upon 
t-be ir.sTjrer." ( inipretae Counoil y« O'Neill , I'S III, App, 4?, l^O,) 
uft do net thlrk the deferdajit haa austninad thin biarden. 

It is olaiTsscJ thfi.t th* court err?ji iv. a:iriittl«£: in evid- 
ence the said 10 receipt alfr^ed bj? Price-, because ro r€=fer&nco 
to the policy sued or appears upcr; their face, ive i%re. or the opin- 
ion that they were proporly intrcduced In tjvi-a^nce in connection 
with plaintiff's testitnony ejqplalnlnc th©?s, { Hartfor". I >i3 > Oo« v, 
Sherran, I3c 111. App. 20S» 214; Estate of ■^■sitz&r v, /t>rtar;"bach ■ 
12.-: 111. A]?P, £^? Ditch V, voIl>mrdt> 83 111. 1""*, Y5S,) And the 
evidence tends to r-hCiV that prioo had wt least tlie apparent, if iiot 
the actual, atjthorlty to raak© thj collaationa and issue the receipts, 
and iffhsthor he had that authority -vaa a q^uesticn of fast for the 
j'-ary. ( >^clu5oldt v. L,ar.>;ston, lOfr III. App. 5S5.) 

W© think that the vordict is support ad by hcth the law 
£ind Uie evidence, and tliat substaittal Justio© Jma been done, and 
the JiKif^ent ia therefore aff iraed. 



21(! - 18375. 

CniC/uJC i2ii3033da3 MOULDINv 

OOllPAf'If & Corporation, / \ 

Dftfendar.t In iiiror, ) ERROR TO 

, / ,184I.A. 617 



/ ) 

JlAX (J. J. aOhFMAN, ) OP OiiaAuO, 

PlMntlff In i!.rror. ) 

iSi, JUiiTlOE aiilDL^TT DELiYiffiliai THE OPINIO" OF 'IME (JOUliT, 

Plaintiff In onror, defendant below, seeks by this 
writ to roveroe a Judfir^nt for $111,52 rendered a^^alnat him 
in the ;!uniolpal court of GMoa.PO in favor of defondant in 
error, plaintiff l>elOHr, in a fciirth class case tried by the 
court without a jury, 

Platintiff cl^iinad tb-t defarsiant sas indebted to 
plaintiff in the emn of ^115, aa rent, for a portion of the 
seoond floor of a certiiin factory building In Chicago for the 
sjontJi of :;ovQT3ber, irUi, less the sum of |S,6S, being a bal- 
ance du© defendant on a aeparate open aoocunt between the par- 
ties, Bef .jndant denied that he o«ed plaintiff anything for 
rent of said prs^^iiaes, and clair^ed d&?r.tiges, by way cf set-off 
or reooupKont, for failure of plaintiff to fumisl^ power to 
defendant at certain times whdle defendant was occupying said 
preislsea under a verbal lease of the aarrj© "inoludins po^er". 

llio aatorial f&cta are as follo'^ai About tvfo years 
prior to Kovenber 1, lOll, defor^dant, by verbal lesae frois 
plaintiff, * rented the .^pace and jsc-v^-er* for ^90 a tsonth, oe- 
cupied the space continuously up to a.bout November 10, 1^11, 
and paid the rert for the a.^ine to plaintiff fisjis Ronth to 
Konth, including the r-icnth of October, ISII. Plaintiff's 
buainess a;i3 thJit of TnarufriOturir^ ?iOUltiings, etc., and it 

^r ."^ 7©tT*; ' '. ,: firmn< 

"^t V> 

occupied aaid factory building, leas the apaoo laaaed to de- 
fondant, for that purpoa©, uain^ power for opftratin^ inaoMnery. 
ijofondant occupied salvl space in connection «ith hla buainosa 
of m&rmfucturing special ortbinr^t vork for offices anl ctoroa, 
and he recjuiz*©^ oortuin power for running his laachinery. On 
Septenbar 15, IS 11, dofondant aarved a written notice on plain- 
tiff to the effect that he deaired to vacate the preriises aa 
plaintiff's tenant and would do ao on October ^^ist. On iJept- 
eiBber iJfith, plaintiff wrote d©ft*ndar:t acceptinjf^ aaid notice 
and atatinj? that plaintiff had lOJuie arrangeraents for a new 
tenant NoTerober lat, at which time plaintiff expected defend- 
ant to iracatc* the pre::?iae3. Plaintiff also atate<i in aald 
letter th^tt if defendant desired to ccn^tinue to occv^y the 
precisea after Hov^ber l»t, defendant ai^it do so until l.<ay 
Ist followirtg, at a rental of |115 p&r month, payable in ad- 
vance, providing he would notify plaintiff of hie intent ic«i 
so to do not later than October ist, oo that plaintiff could 
cancel tJje arrangement© .¥ith its p^opo.J^^i nsw tenant. Defend- 
ant did not notify plaintiff of hia intention to occupy th^ 
preslsao after Kovsrsber ist, but ho dii occupy the sa^ne until 
about Kovealjer 10th, wh^n he rsoved o?it. On Hovstsber ZOth, 
plaintiff wrote defendiint, encloBing ner«>ran'-U2Ei oharr^ing de- 
fendant with tho mm of §115 for rertt of the preriaea for the 
sjonth of Sovesiber, 1<^11, and gi'^iJ'^P defmidant credit for bal- 
ance on a .id open acooimt, and de''?a.nding pronpt pay??ient of 
tiiii net b^tlc^Rce of illl,2:4« Defendant did not pay plaintiff 
any part of this ivaount, aithoui.::h there iitsrf; some negotiations 
had between tho partias to-afar<i3 a settj etneiit, and pl?i1.r.tiff 
finally broui^ht the proaont action, 

':^*e deferxiant, Hoffrna^, testified that there wore 
ae^veral occasions during his occupancy when h© could not get 


••■^JOP't ■-: 

.^ » tm ,7»r«ti»r- 

power to run Ms miohlnery, once ir ?saroh, 19 H, for a poriod 
of t»o n^&ys, when plalntifr'a "engine exploded" and plaintiff 
put in another ©r.gln«; again. In Jvmo, 1911, for a period of 
eleven daya, when "tin escentrio ring, or something, a piston 
ring", broke and a new on© h&ci to be procured by plaintiff froa 
St. Lrouiej and as*An, on October ^3, isii, for a period of sev- 
eral days, when defendant "sraa tied up with oontraota t!iat had 
to be out by v.orevsh&r iBt", and which put hlra "in an awful fix". 
It does not appear that the ceaaaticn of power in October, 1911, 
was the res It of other than unavoidable oauses* Defendant fur- 
ther testified to certain faots tending to ahow that he was some- 
what da.^a)^ed in hia business beoaus* of the delay in getting out 
certain work caused ^y lack of po»er to run iiia inaohinary on said 
oocaaiona; but it does net appear that h# at any tirsa raade any 
deisand on plaintiff for any definite aiaQ>int, aa danagea, until 
ho filed hia oiai??j of aet-off in thia aotion, He further testi- 
fied that aft"pr hia power aaa shut off in March, 1911, for the 
ouxiBti above r59nti®i^, h^ requeatsd that plaintiff give him a 
credit on the succeeding ?oontfc*s rent, but that pi.iintlff refueod 
so tC" do, and he continued to pay his rent, H© further testified 
that, in a oonveraation h^wl rith ths prsaident of th-; plaintiff 
conpan^' after t}^e oessatlor: of po^^er in October- 1911, tho latter 
agreed to alio?^ hi-n to occupy the prenjisj?^ for a ahort pcriol of 
tins after Koveiabar l'*t, Xhe latt-.r flatly d*3n5,ad rstiking any 
such agreement with him* 

'{Je cannot say that th<:s flndln/'; is nr.air.J^t tho wei?-ht of 
^he evidsnoe, 

Heithar can we say thi^t i^irXer the t^rvts of th*; verbal 
leacs, as shov^r by the ovidsnoo, plaintiff '^as re-juired to fur- ish 
power to aef Arslant at all tlrsoa cijirin*^ wor^rlng hours a-hil^ defend- 
ant vras a tsnant. On the cor.trary, it aeons to im that plaintiff 


^l.♦fc j^o 

waa only to furnish to defendant aueh povY^ar as it haid, et.'-'.d 
that in caac of an ur.avoidabl© break -down In plaintiff's 
po«er pliint plaintiff oould not b© held liable to defendant 
for any da?^afi;es sustained toy hire. If any, ooo*.iolon&d by the 
terporary oesat^tion of power. 

■?y the corrospordence had between the part lets in 
iiepterjber, IS 11, It appears that defendant, w}io was a terart 
tro^ north to nsorth, was not, if lad that if h« occupied th© 
pr0taiaei> aftor Hovejaber l8t» the rent would he at thy rate 
of :|115 per r.onth payable In ^.rfmce, .defendant did not tr^ov© 
out taitll about Sovewber lOth, althoui^ he had notified plain- 
tiff he crotild do ao on October Slat, and are think that, under 
the faots sho^-r!, the court sua l\illy Justified in holciin?^ that 
defendant was liable for on© aionth*« rent at said rate. 

The Judgment la aocor<\ingly affirjaed. 

'"'^■'^ ^'e^m, ins. Tfo: 

2S3 - 1838 !• 


""* '^"*^;p.n«. I / I. A. 618 







\, / 

'-. /" 
This appeal 1;^ talraacs xo rever&e a Judgasnt for 

$lf091,67, rortdorod in a first olaas suit in the idimicipal 

Court of Chio4Ago upon th<» Tartliot of a Jury, in favor of Ararja 

Drago, plaintiff belo^, and aj^ain'.t The Pru<i«sntlal insurance 

Cosspany of iUserloa, a corpox^tio*^, hereinafter referred to aa 

the Goropany, def^^dant below. The action wag in a0siffiipBit 

upc^ a policy of life insurs^oe, clainidd to have he&n iaouod 

and delivered by the y.ompsxr\y, upon the life of Mai»ian S, 'd&wn 

to the asount of »1#000« Plaintiff, the nother of B&nra, waa 

the bereficiary naraed in th*j policy . 

in plaint if f»B amended nt&t'^nrsnt of ciair) it is allei^e-i 
that her ciaita ia for SlOOO "due under terra Inaur&noe, dated 
Kovejsbor ;ir?, 11*09, and countersigned tJecember 2B, 1909 f and 
isi-ued ir. connection with policy ?;o. 113609!3, aaid tei^s insur- 
ance and said policy iss^ued by deferdant upon the life of liarian 
E. aaiiiB, and payable to plaintiff as beneficiary'*. The oaln 
grotjnd of defense, as stated in the affidavit of r?erits and 
ae relied upon at the trial, was that the ctmp&r.y "never entered 
into any contract for insurance of ary kind on thss Ufa of i.^ariaars 
E. aauK, and never iaisued or dellvsrisd Uie *torRs insurance* or 
the policy rsentloned in plaintiff »i? etaterrsent of claim". 

On Hovember 1;^-, 1-09, Baura, at the solicitation of Prod 
a. ^adie, an ag«int of U). uonpany in Chicago, signed an application 



Hi V- -'-^ "i^ '^' 

for a twenty year enclowaent policy for ,U0OO, and paid 3adl6 

the mm of |£ on aoocunt of th© first annual premium of |42.96. 

The application apeoified that the prereiua was to h& paid ^i- 

nually, that the injuranoe isoney in eaae of death was to be paid 

to Anna Dra^^o, mothor, and Uiat the pclioy waa to be dated Febru- 

^£L iSl. ^^^^Q» **^^ ^l«o contained the agreemerit that the atate- 

jaents and tuiavers to the questlims in said application, »ia «ell 

aa the statent^mte and answers made or to be soade to th(? CoTBpany»a 

medical oxaniner, ahoxild ocnatitute arel become a part of the 

contract of Inmaranoe applied for, and that the policy herein 

applied for ■shall not ta^e effect imtil the aaae almll be iaaued 

and delivered by the said 0<»apany, and^firat prMaium paid thereon 

in full, while sy health ia in the aane ccHxlition aa described 

in thie applioation." The declaratio>«:sade to said laedloal @x- 

iwsiner v/ere signed by Baum cm Kov^sber 17* 19Q9^ Wadie testified 

t^t wlien llaii^ signed the application on Hovestber 12th, liaxm 

stated that he did not than have the ??»ney to pay the fir at annual 

prejsiua in full, but would have the sa^se by February 15th; that 

that waa the reaaon why it «as stated in tlie application that the 

polioy to be issued was to be dated Febmary 15, lUlOj that when 

he (Wadie) too^ Bauis's application &r^ received |S frojs 3&\m he 

gavs Baujn the receipt dat®d Hovert^er 12th, which was Introduced 

in evidence by plaintiff and iras to the effect that the Cosapany 

hud received $2, "being a paytsent on account of the first prsmii^ 

on a policy applied for*; that ij^msediatoly after receiving iiaana's 

application he turned it into the local offioa of the Gosipany to 

bo forwajrdeti throiigji the t£»dio4I ea^ainer to the hanBe offlo«, and 

that he never aaw Brojm a^in. It alao appears froTn the evidence 

t>;at on rieoesjber 8th ^adie wrote i5auia t^sat l'.-* had "passad the 

doctor" and could have hi^j polioy at any titaej that the howe 

office, by mistakft, executsd arai forwarded to th© local office a 

twenty year endowssoTit polioy for #1000, «o, 11360^3, dated Hovonber 

sol jtstlor ^m 




txan't.l «<? 

'•7A ikxsit txl 

3 TOY/ 


Sl»- ^-^'^' providing for the payBjent of the tmrmal preralum 
on or before February I5th In ©aoh ymxr, which policy sra-a re- 
turned to the ho!30 of flee for correction; that in the is&an^ 
tisa Wadia, of hla o*n motion and without the knosled^e or 
consent of Baura, requeatod that tharo be attached to the policy, 
tfhich waa firxilly to be iasued and dated February 15, 1910, a 
■tera insur-^noe a^rreer^ent" by arhicli, in oonaideration of the 
payment of the pretnii^a of |3.20, the Ootapany, 'u^tm delivery of 
this policy", would agrea to pay tbo asaount of tho policy if 
Smun should dl© prior to said February 15th, and that '^adia^ 
In ordor m> snake up this praniusi of %ii»SXi for aaid t>9r?!i Inaur- 
anca, took tha ^ vhloh hod originally "c««r P^i^ him by Eaura, 
added ^ oenta out of hia otm pookat, turned the s&s^ into the 
local office, and reoaived frcaa that office a prsliainary in- 
surance receipt, countarai^ed DeosBber 38, 1009, to the affect 
tliat the CJoapany had rsceived "or. policy xio, 113^096, « ^ ^ th© 
tars inauranoe premium, |2«i30*, on the life of & 3a,uja« It 
further appears fron the evidence that the hoBie office siode out 
a nos twenty year policy, No, 1130056, dated ifebruary 15, V>W, 
to which saa attached aa a rider tho "tars insurance agreement" 
Bsntlonad, and forwarded tJie aaiss to this local office at Ohioago 
together slth another paper, entitled "Request for /jner^morX of 
Ordinary Policy Contract", to bo aignod by aald Bautn, whioJi paper 
iffhen 30 aligned would give .authority to the Oospany to change 
"anniversiiry dat& from Hovesbor 37, ir^09, to j^-ebriiary 15, IP 10, 
by charging terra insurable e* . 

In the laeantise i3aun had left Ghioago arsi he went to 
California, i?hezn> h^ died on January IS, 1?10. the said policyt 
d?*ted Februajry 15, iriO, never got into th© posseaaion of Bims, 
.. t the tliae 6f the trial it wp-g in t^e possess ion of the loc?il 
office of the aorspany and sas produced in CCTjrt by Jaaas H, Ire- 
lard, general rajmager of the local offio«, in Hn&M&r to a rnjtapoona. 

I4 "^ft 

»fln- ; n»^i \. u..:tix :^-o t*rf ric^ 

-02 TtTUia±»*I«*«! j8 ♦ol'il- 

* .^JBtii 

£folrf*ir . 


'•^ o4 .00 

Tit QQAC^ftD J1t»l i 

roK awm 

•rt^ to oolllo 

r» oC «tt9jr 

Piaintlff 'a theory of the oa9« was that a dollvairy of the policy 
to liaxm personally waa not necessary and that tlie delivery to 
tho as©?it, Wadie, waa a eu^fioiant delivery in law. -^adie tes- 
tified thut, after said policy, dated February I5th, together 
*ith said other ptiper entitled as aforesaid, had been received 
frofs the hojne offioa by the local office, >>oth papers »ere s!;iven 
hiiB by tlie sltneas, Ireland, with certain ir.f5truotioTi»» He waa 
not alloise^l by the court, in tm^^eeir to appropriate questions, to 
testify ehat tlioee instructions were. The attorney for tli© Gon- 
pany aouglit to ehow by v?adle that, acting under those Inetnjctioas, 
he was to personally sea Baua, procure his signature to said other 
paper and a&tiafy hiiaself that Batos then appeared to b^ in good 
health, before delivering the policy to Bauia, - in other worda, 
that the delivery of the policy to Wadle was no' an uncondition- 
fil delivery. And the court alr>o refused to alio., the witness, 
Ireland, to teatify aa to iriiat tha instructions given to Sadie 
at the tisse were. 

Viadie further testified that, about two w©(s"Ka after 
BaU5i*3 deaUi and after he had been inforvied of that fact, he 
delivered the above seRtion<ad tors insuinmce receipt, which he 
received aa aforeaald fi^os tbo local office and which was count ar- 
oigned uecesber iiSth, to a laan niuaed Postan for tho plaintiff, 
and that, about three weeks aftc*r Bauej'a death, Jie yl/^ed a re- 
ceipt as agent of the Oosspany aand deiivereti tha saras to poaten 
for plaintiff, to tho effect that th© Corspany hitd received fros 
" M. Bsrtatf' the sus of "kJO cents bal. on tsm", which receipt h© 
ar.te--istad as of Dsoenber £7th. 

the trial court gave tc the jury #lth oth'3ro the follow- 
ing instruction, to which the attorney for the Oospany objected 
and esosptod; 

■ rhe court instructs tlw Jury that an unqualified 
acceptance of the applicfttion for inaur^mce and plr.oinf, 
tho completed policy in tho hai^B of an agent for delivery 

/tin« 9^99 ^f*.* "?•? t^<Wrrt* 

vo «li xfd 


■4 •Oi^': -,jg ae 

s or lo 111 


sithoiit cordlticn, coBpX«tej the contract, and if 
in thic OiifcO you find that ti;& defendant inmaranoe 
oorapany aoooptsd unqu^s-lifladiy the application of 
iiarion L« ijauHS for tena ir.suranoo ana placed thn 
oort^lotad terK Inauranoe policy into the h&rKia of 
F, ::, Wadie for deli vary aiUiout condition, ani that 
the aald F, iU Wadie »as an agent of aai^l daftmdant 
inauraroe company, then the contract for tera insur- 
ance *aa complete without any furthor acta, and the de- 
fendaj^t oc^pary is bound by its contract of inaurance,* 

Under the facta of thia case arsd in viow of the ab^ve 
instruction, we are of tho opinion timt the trial court coranltted 
error, pirajudioial to the CSonpany, In not allowing the witneaaos 
Wadirt a'n-i Ireland to testify aa to what inatructic»ia ware giran 
Wadls by th« Oomp^iy ifhen the policy was put into his hande, Thla 
»a3 oonpet«^.t evidenoe to be considered by the Jury in oonaeaticm 
3rlth all tho other eridwica, "Delivery ia a question of intent*. 
( Jordan v. Davia, 108 111, 3^56, 341; Bryan v. W&ah, z iilJBi. 55?, 
S^'^J -.cjonuld V. Minntclc, 147 111, S51, f^SQ,) \shile it ia true 
that "an unqualified accsptance of th© application ar:d plaoit^ 
the coapletsd policy in the hands of an agent for delivtiry, filth- 
out condition, ioapletes the ccaitraot", C Hoa>? ▼• '^atu&l Llf^ Ina, Go. , 
24^ 111. 45, 51 J yet such aco^tanoe mint be unqualified ana gtubll 
placing of the coiaplated policy rsa^t be Hfithout conJition. {2>*? 
Oyc. 7X9; Hartford Fire Ins. Oo. ?. WhitTgan, 7n Ohio St. 312, 5165 
3cby£i.rt3 V. a erm&nia Life Ins. Op, IS :'in?i, 448; j;aOiilly*a Ad^'r. 
'^« P^^nijg Ina. Co., 18 W. Va« 7GS; i>& t_ ^3r -3 v. .'.aouri ty L.^ ^ ^ A. Go. 
144 ?i. C, «es, c7f>.) 

ijid w® think that the f^ivin^:; of tho inatruotion jsontior.ed 
w?i^- prejudicial to the Co^pni.ny» It adsujaes t^mt Baum isade an ap- 
plication for tons insurance. The Corgpv^ny contonded at th© trial 
thiit he did not sake such an appiicnt lo?^ but only ar: applioiitlon 
for a tisorty year endowment policy to be datad February I5, l&ld. 
Whether he s^de an application for tasra inmarsotce waa onts of the 
queationo of fact for the Jjiary to decide latider all th^ evidence. 

, .0.1. 

POP %h& r«aaons indioat«d the jiEignssnt of tho 
Suniolpai Court i» reveraed arsi the oaws© reaa2idad« 


toter Term, IS12. iTo, 

80S - l*-5725. I 


Defendant in Error, 

^fl84I.A. 620 

sBmm 70 

miHiaiPAL aouBT 

PSXiiTi OLPFt 3Aru>^ B, OLF'/ and # 

AB'finJE OI.Pf , doing buaineaa as < f,j., cjuiaAOO. 


Pl^ntiffo in HiTor. 



In October, 1910, the^ plaintiff bolos was engaged in 

tl» laundr^r buainesa and used i^ ooraneotior therewith two 
borssa and t»o laiasdry nagcns, ^to*, «hich vara k«?t in a livery 
atabla in O*iica^o conducted by defer?dants, who were also in the 
business of buying, selling and trtidln/5 hors^a. lyn October 
I7th, the defendants h&vln;: refused to deliver the horaes and 
wa^ns to plaintiff on den&nd, plaintiff tendered to defend- 
ants the aura of #BS*50a then du« t>*«ja for board and ^Q^Vi, shidh 
defendants refueed, a?x?. on the following day plaintiff cors^nced 
&n action In replevin to recover certain ohattolB, shloh wore 
stated in the affldnvit to h© *one bay horse ^ » one blaa ^r lioras" 
and two wagons ar^ two set-4 of harness, ?hQ "srit «as returned 
unexecuted by the bailiff, and on overabsr 7th, plaintiff ook- 
meneed the presort &<5tlon a^inat th^ dofsndants in the i^tstioipal 
Oourt of Chisago, ahich was also an action of th« fourtb ola@3 
in replevin, t,o rooovor th« pcasession of "tsfc bay horsas*, tv»o 

laund2*y wagons aixi two seta of hamoss, ail of ths aile^'ed value 


of ;^900, Tine i^rlt waa rwtumed^executed and showed th-it upcn 

dejsend of tho bailiff tho defsndanta rei'UBSd tc turn ov^r to 
hl?n ttiO property, >;ub3equsntly all of the defer^ante ertered 
their appearance an*,i plaintiff tendered to dofendsa^ts in open 
court tJiO au3i of |iJ5,50 wfiich was refused. Jiibsaqaiontly 

.CiL^I • KTSSi 

*89*»'r'?»^ ^o w omS baa 

jTjfTJtj*--* n. 

d r'e♦^f^«^r*fTy 

f«it fii 

11^ ,»irwfP*f»'^ 
:^ fiCW ft»v 

odi i*s(ioc> 

plaintiff was p;lv«n leave to olmnge th« fors of action frora 
replevin to troT«r and filed a oount In trover, on D^ooraber 
ath, 1010, the oa»8 v&a tried b«for*!' a Jury, resulting in a 
Tordiot finding the defandants j^ilty of having ?aalicloualy, 
and srlth ir?t«nt to dofraxid plaintiff, oonverted to tlieir own 
use tho aald property of plaintiff, and aa&eaoin^, plaintiff's 
das»^o» &t the aim of $568. 50, A new trial «aa grant ad, and on 
October 4, l??ll, the seoond trial was aorasonoed. The transcript 
of th'3 roooni diaolosee that the plaintiff deposited with the 
clork of the aourt th© sun of ^25*50 a» a tender to defendanta. 
The seoond trial resulted in a alrailar verdict tsi^lnst the dei- 
fendanta and plaintiff's darmges were aaaetsaed at the mim -j-t 
^46f>» AnotJisr new trial waa granted, ard on May 2, 1S?1S, the 
third trial waa hesjun, whi^ Tomsltsd In the pay r«tumlnf? a 
verdict, '^ay B, 1912, finding the defendant o ,«;ullty of having 
aallcloualy arai ifith lnts?it to defrauui plaintiff converted to 
tneir own us© the property of plaintiff desijrlbed in plaintiff ♦s 
affidavit* m^ assesaing plaintiff's dana^ss at the mim of 
f84a,7.*5« Defendantjl* ?aotlcm for a new trial was denied and juds:- 
aent «a.v^ 'sntered upon th<> vardist, which JitAgjasnt the d^fa-nSiints 
by this sjrit of error aeelt to reverse. 

IJhe raaln conttj^.tions of thy defendants on the trial 
i8©r« that on June 1, 10 m, the defsnclanta traded sfith plaintiff 
a black horse osmed by them for a bay horrio earned by plaintiff 
and 1126 In addition, tiiat d&tm';6.smtB oiai:*5@d no oaniership in 
the property but held the a^iae by reason of th*? statutory lien 
of ©table keepers, and that on Oetobc-r 17, 1910, plainftiff owed 
defendants for board, axpanaes, etc,, the mm of 5>1*50,^. Plain- 
tiff claimed that on aald date ho saa indebted to th« defandarts 
only ir. tbo said auta of |.-;5.50, ao aa aforesaid t^idered to th«^ 

?•& *er 

ja«« ^r- 

ifrntionq nAi 

^ISa^b \% 

f rii ^J 

It appears that tlie trial court artar inatructlnf the 
Jury orally aubalttod to tho jwry six qu«otlona whioh th«y wore 
requested to answer in addition to returning thoir f,an9ral ver- 
dict, t'our of these qiteatlons and ttie speoiftl findinga of the 
jury thereon wore «ia follot^a: 

"l, TVas the plaintiff indobtsd to deferdanta for 
board of horaeo on October 17, 1510 for mors thar 
#2f.50? ••;0, 

4, Sfaa th« plaintiff indebt&d to defendants on 
purohaae price of a blaolr horae on cotobsr T7, ir*io? Ro, 

5, Kow Tmich »a3 plaintiff indebted to defcsTuiantB 
for board, fead ard keep on i)otobar 17, 1910? ^25,50 

6, Did plaintiff trnda his bay horse for deferd- 
anta* blaok horae? Ho** 

Kary points are urged by ootjmael for defenda»"!ts as 
grounds of reversal, W© have oarefully considered tb<srg in 
oom^,0ctior vrlth the abstraot of th<i? volumlnoxis record, c?® do 
not think that the verdict ar^d judgjcearjt are exeosalve or con- 
trary ^^ ^he la« and the eviderce, or that tl;© vordiot iis 
against the weigJit of the evidanoe, ^ve Ujiri^ Umt a suffir^iant 
tender waa made by plaintiff to defond&nts before th® auit was 
cc^!5snce<i antl that the ssiae was sufficiently kept good, and 
that the oourt'a oral instructions a^ore substartially correct 
and not rdsleading, Aa tc ths rulings of tha trial court on the 
ad^rlsaion of certain ovidsnoe, cor-plained of by ocur^ai^l, «o do 
not think any aubatantial ©rroro ^®re cOT^sBlttei auch as warrant 
a reversal of the juii^nent. (Par, 7, aoo. ;d3 ::unioipal Jcurt 
Act. ) 

the ju:i|?nr!}ent is i»,ffir?i5©d» 


'tt>4i9l»la ion L.-.i. 
:oc «»0'»i5lT» rri«iT:*o to fro' 

toter Terr:. 19-^0 t- 4 


ffiSMA TtilJiSLii, } 

Plaintiff In lirrcar, ) EmtOR ^ 
▼«• ) SUl^IOB tiCURT 

D«f«i<laiit In ijrror, ) / 

/ 184I.A. 633 



The plalr^tiff in error Ivas Injured in arj accident 
sfhioh occurred on April 21» 1909, at or nsmv th« Intersection 
of ^ellirigton and Clark stre@tn, in tho oity of Jhlcaso. ^^jo 
OMBEMnoed this aotlon ai^inst th© d©fer»dant in orror, Jofcan 
Hotzely find the c^iloa^ Hallways 0<»9pan7. After t!>d cos@^nc»- 
sent of the action, ror a oomJideration of $200, she init«r«d 
Into a •peace coTv>njmt* witii «ie Hallways aosspa^y, ejnd tbe Kail- 
mya CkMsjpany sas diar!i3s<&d fros the jmae, anS it ims tri«d sr! th 
the dsfer.dart in error, Ketzel, as the sole a^fsndSint, Hattie 
g« B&lsley, «ho s^it standing by the plaintiff in error at tho 
tlae of the accident, was also injured, Mrs, Balsley cosaR«riOed 
a euit against th@ defendant in errcr Hetael, and secured a 
•verdict i«Ki Jii^ipj^nt In h«r f^vcr. This jud.s^>nt, en appeal, 
eaate before t)«la court for rsvisw, and the Judgssnt of th?5 ioi^or 
ecurt was afflr?nsd by tMs oourt. ( rt&ttle -;_^ 3alaley ¥• Jelm 
Het>:ol» rio. l^OOfl -• Oplnlcrt filed ootofesr 9, .10i5.> Tl^ ©vide?^© 
in the cese no.*? before ua waa si^batsntially th^ ni?r« aa the 
evidence that wea presents in tiie salaley ca&e, save that th^ 
def«*ndar;t in error in th© presf^.t aaae presented one rtitnaea an 
to the accident Uicit did not teetlfy in U»9 iialslay sa.-ss* Plain- 
tiff in orrcr avers in ber declaration that on April 21, 1^09, 
Uie defeRtidr^t, Chicago iiailwaya gonpany, npia noaosssed of, oi&TiQd, 
oontroll^ ana used oeirtair street car traclJiJ and rii^bt of aay. 

and tli*recm o«ned» aanskged, oporatod at^ propelled oartain 
strsot oar« over Claris: etre@t, a public hlfjiaray, &nd that th« 
aaid H&ilTg&jn Conip&ny »»« » oofsreon ©axnrlftr of paasen^oru for 
hire; that th© d«fen(iart» Haitzel» osnrs«ai, aontPoll©d ar.i dir*T« 
a oortain wa^f.on clrfttm by Mr 90a; ttiat en tli© dn.y aforoaatl, th« 
plalr.tiff In error was standing at tho Intorsaction of ClCLrk 
0tre«t and Wellington aveniie, at & uaual and oustoaary stopping 
plaea for pa&s«ng»ra fear said Railways cofspany's owrni that she 
was? in th« «x9rci3e of ordlniiry car© for Jsar oun perac^al a&foty 
at th« tlsse, arsd tJ^it a.h» al^^imllod on« of aaid Rail«ay« Oos^any*tt 
soiitli fcoimd oara on aouth Cl«rfc atr©®t to stop for the purpouo 

of bdooalng a paasenj^sr thereon; tliat th® oaid Rallwaya Cosspany 
eo oarsl«3i»ly ard ne^;;lif5©ntly ^sarj&ged aisi operated its aaid 
0tjro«t oar in a sou Uier ly dl root Ion al<m^ arsd over said aiartc 
straet, asad Ui® said defardart H«t2<>l so ofirsleasly «m t re^^llgemt- 
ly ms»m^ed, controlisd ar. 1 drove th© said wagon in a southerly 
dirocticii alor^g aaid vJiari? street it th© plac» aforoa&ld, that 
by an4 thorough the car«l«6isrs©*3 smd nf*siige?Tc© of t)is? aaid de- 
fersdants aa afcreeaid, a oolllsloaR oomirr«'3 bst'«@<ir! said wagon 
{K^d said esjr, srsX th^*t as a direct, irws&diat© ar^ proxiiaate re- 
sult thereof, said aagcTA wae ferook&d, forced and thro^»m to^artla 
the ourb &s^xi sideuralk of said Oiiirt otra^et, and tOisiarft and ujx»; 
th« pi 'too 'a;h©re plaintiff thsn arstl th^re «^a or; s&id fmblio 
big}i»ay, in tha ^jseroiaa of d'ja osir^ as i^or^aaid, unci that a© 
a direst ^rtd lesaadiitto oof?®©qu0r.c© thereof s» colli rd an ooo^srrod 
bet»@e?3 isaid hors953 ^H-nd wagon and said pial'^tiff, taid the plain- 
tiff eaa than and there and thereby ksioafeod, %hTc&T. strd f«ll 
upon th© ^ound sslth gr^wit fora« .ani vloliino®, J^rhi the horses 
8t«pp*d upon, plairjtiff snd th& Tgagcr. atmak ar'-d passed over plain- 
tiff, arui th» plaintiff thereby iSuatairfeBd ln.Surie3, etc. <.*5 
tha trial, tbo thoory of tho plaintiff in error mis tkat sf^ 

I . : :.-r.-: :,•>.'» r>'--A£- ' . ? v Ti; 

'a> ,i«i 


sa^ dFQ» Balaldy w«r« aUjbrdlng cm th© sou threat eornflrr of 
Cl&rk ivnd Sdlllngton streets (at a usiml »r>d eiastcjsnry stopping 
place for paaaangera), fo" the inarposfi of boanlinf^ » aouUi 
boiarsd street oar oi^ OlarTc atreet; that 3he«» a street oar 
OGBdn^ south on Clark titre^it arxl slgn&lied it tc atop and that 
it oa-re to a atop nt the oroseing whore e. a and the other iady 
«ere waitint- to take the oar? that the driv^jr of the iletael 
jf&?pn had bewi follo*ln^ the oar, the m&i^&n laovlrjg »outh tabollf 
or partly on the eouUi bound traofef that about the tiite the car 
was cooing te a atop at the orc^eeirig the horse and sr^gon, siovirg 

rapidly, tume<i out tvcm the tr&ok behind ttte o^r, the intent of 
the driver of the horse and sugcn oelng t« pass th^ c«tr arA to 
get 1r fremt of the aasset arai tbat in ao^s rsaaraier the left hir^ 
wheel of the »&gon oollid«l »lUi the re^r step of the ot^^ oaua- 
liif- the «a.g€»i to tilt 9 ST^ the h^^ee to a-.iRg to %h& west mi<S 
to nm upon Uie aidewalk, etrikirig plaintiff, I'he tfeeory of the 
dofentiart in errar was tfut.t as tJi« horae ttrjc! imgoji approtiahed 
the intersection in qijieati<5n» t?^j eere I'-eln^s: drl-g^n south in 
aiarlc 3tz>8et ar4 iu^t west of t?ve ^south boieisl oar tra=3>:»? that 
tfhen wslllngtori ^street w^a raa.ohed & wagon belcnijing to Oar«<ai, 
Pirie, ^oott \ Oo, sas oppcalte th<j dedfsndant in error's Wiigan 
ar^a tc tm «eat of it, imd that th© dofsmar.t Ir. qtvot*- wsiig^a 
ga,i prevented froa zaovin^; rscr'H tc thij Ksat bsoaus© of the position 
or Uie Giypaon, Pirie, ^oott A -C', sa^oin; that a acuth bourpi 
street car fipproacJiad U-e nagon fros tl"jiS ret^r at such & hi^h rate 

of 3pee^ aa to in^iicata that it cotii:! not atop at tiws oroaairs 

at th-e south side of lolilngtcn streett that in pas^^irsp; the sap^oss 

the rear st^p Of th© car (vrhloh j^tep pro J tinted s*?v«ral Inches 
bayoni the weat side of th-j o.«jr) eatight th^ latt rear «he»i of 
U;e wag^i jind threw the hors^ &rd sj»f,or. to*?ird the curb and aide- 
•*-alk, arid upc»i plaintiff; that iis the o&r went by th« wagon. 


but bofore th« oolliaion, tbs driver saw the t»Q woss^r: «tard- 
Ing on th© oro»8lng and, t^t^gnaJll^ tor litom ic et«p baok, arid 
thtat *hen hs saw th* ttonon were not rs jpondlng to hi a dli-in&l 
to step b&ok ho iito?p«d the wa^tOR^ but tiu9 hlvid etap on th« 
rl^ht side or tho car struck tho left rsar <»h6ol of th© wsagon 
and cau«ed the wajton wnd horse to be throwr to;sfardg the sid©- 
wallc and against th« worjan, 

h nusiber of witnoa(»«>s t«i>tifl«d in support of ©aoh 
theory. The plaintiff In orrcr ln«lst» ihB^t th© plaintiff in 
«rror ^ustalr^d h^r cas(» by a prttpordararc© of tli* ®vid»nc», 
FTOin an ftXiiiainatlor* of th« «vl*«no« In tho oasd, s® ^r« eati»- 
fled that if a ▼eraiot had been found by tbs jtiry in favor of 
the plaintiff in error it wQiil4 have been a^ply supported by the 
evidence in the oase. Th® ^vay that heurd ths ©vidono© In the 
case of '..tra, Bslaley returrted a verdict In hor favor .^igalnet 
t:-'- defetndant Hetsel. This fact, cf coura«> has ro controlling 
off©ot on o^zr a^tior, in this case, 

fbe plaintiff in ^m/r ohaliengaa m& 3orz»©stnsaa of 
tsanj of the Inatnictions glv^i by ths trial court fet th-z r®- 
ffjieat of thSf defendaiit In error. In ths^ vie* that -ts t&ka of 
tlie evldenae in tha cass. It "bsciss&s necessary for uf% to sxiw-'^ifte 
«ith oar# the oo::;plalr»ta rsaSe by the plfiintiff in error as to 
the ina truest ions in the q&,&0» 

7h& plaintiff In error cimlleni^as th^ aorrsotneaa of 
Instruction i--o. 14# Ativan at tha iTistarioe of the defendant In 
error, rbe Inatrjiction re&dii 3.3 follows? *14, If tJ^© evidsnee 
In thia oa-se preponderates In f?3.'/or or th« def«??-dar.t, th^m yoi^r 
verdict should bo not guilty, or, Jf the evidence falls to pTQ-- 
ponders»'t# in f&voi' of plaintiff, the jury ohcuia flrd tl:^ defend- 
ant not guilty, or If tht» "Evidence in th® case l& #venly balanoa^, 
the inry should tim tm defendant not guilty,* An in0tn;etion. 

3nat«riaUy th© aaee but slightly different tn phraaaolosy, 
wae sosvianned b? tbia oourt in the easo of H^la<w v, ahi<i>kKO 
SJL!Z K-^il^aya "o« f, 1^'3 111. App. isa. In that caa®, the ooiirt 
ap0G^lng of the instruction, said: ^thlB instruction was oon* 
deemed in Ohioa^ W«ot DlYloion ?:y, Co, v, Lan'bort, 119 111, 
am^ '^)B$ b««auae it did not rt&strict th« ©videance i*«ferr«d to, 
*o ths i8su*s •aaaf^tiiil to th« raaint<»Tsi^no6 of the action* Tha 
Jury Blight apply tho instruction to evtd«mo« on point© in dis- 
put* flftsich wer» not »fi0i»^ti&l arid thajs h» rlsled by it* Th« 
Iratri'.otior approved in llo.rv«y ▼. c. «i A, Ry, Oo«, t?gl 111, 242, 
oonflne^t! tie ovldasio* referred to tharein to points smtariul to 
th© plaintiff •?$ caa*.* The iR«truotlo?n is also subject to th« 
critloiaw that It too frequently \mea words to t,b« effect that 
the 4ury should flj^ the dmt^md&rX tsct ^iity. Ur, Jtistioe 
Adaaa, in th« oasi» of Weet Q hl o s f^ o gtre«t Kail» ay ao»_ ▼, lMp»g ^ 
74 111, App« 4aE, Irs apaaking of & si^lar ing-tniotiOR, a&fst 
■it Is fiioo obr»03cio?je to eritlois?;? on aocmant of the freiiii«8Rt 
rsp^tltion of tho »orda 'you ^c«ld finJ tho dof^sdarst not 
guilty '• :^iOh iteration ard roitemtlon of thoa€ «ord3 in a. 
air.gla tnetructlon, n-Jght induo® Ir the T^inds of tls© jury the 
Itnpreoaion tJiat tho ci^irt would favor a ^er.iict of not giiilty,* 
In instruction Ko, V', t^.o defsndiint ir? @rrcr has artfully oon- 
trlvad in a v-rv abort in^trtsotion to h«».vt5 ti^e cijourt tfirloe uae 
the &'ord3 "your vsrdlot should b© not .jj-iilty". Instruction Ko. 
14 is not. th« only o?^>e in this o;^i^« in ■^hloh tJil^ vlc» appsara, 
VTOsi th© rociord in ths caa» it appear a that in thQ instructions 
giv;n for the d«f«^»r>t In ^rs^r the. sords ^^mi 3l-40uld ftr/l the 
d©ff*KlH^t not guilt J* CTT praotloaliy airaiiar t?oz^@ ar« used 3«ven- 
t«©n tin90. The purpopo of the doforsdant in ©rror in frmaing 
the irii5tructl<3i3 in thio way is otevicnis. '2he praotic* i& an 
old one in personfO. injiiry cases. In apoafeing of Uiis praotlae. 

Mr. Ju8tic« i*r<Kler?.cfr A. Srrsith, in tho oatis of S/-?l^*<5n v, 'Hte 
ChiQ/yc C li^^ R ftllimy 22*ju ^S2^A. ^^T^i "Our Attaint i<m la 
o&Ll«d to tbc faot that the» court fravo twerty-nln« inatructiona 
roqu#ated by A&tffrA&ntp si^ii t© their torn ana to th» j!»«pstltlon 
of tha aix»«otlQr! to the jtirj' In varlotis ways to flml tJ-t© dofend- 
ant not j^ltyt ajvi It t« i«rf:«d that th« Inatruotionis asoglvOTi 
Aisount to a :s«ll pr«t»ar»fi arg;iisw»nt fo** tiws defeiidant, ** « » 
In ©ach Inatruotlon roque>4t«d by t>M» doferKiant, nuraberad r«sp«ot- 
iTftly 21, as, 33t iJ«, 28 and 29 » th© dlreotion Is given Uw jury 
tc firvi the d«femdartt not gulity, and In thre« of th«s@ in- 
otruotions the forsa of tli« irordlot la girsn. rixla Is onlf 
another »ay of ©lar^iaalzlrjsj %ti.% norda *net giillty» and ±i as 
effawstlva. If not i&yr^ so, as prlRting- tha irords in lar^-^is type - 
& pi^otica (sond^nBied Ifs - ^Iwoo d v, ghioaj^o Ol^-j H|%»^ 90 111. 
App« 397, 400. OonaiderlBg tlje graat trj^dbor of Instruotiona, 
the charaotsr and m^aber of the rep^tltitma of tlia 3^*» id^a in 
th«m, w© think tfaay *«!*» afall oalmilat«d to Impr^zs th^ jta*y 
»lth the thou,^ht %hsX tJ^s ooiirt Siia ageln»t the plaintiff *n 
tha quea tiers of f&ot arsd tJmt tfi«y ?aif,ht readily l>e KdaieKi to 
bellera that in the oj»inior of ths ootart tj^ay should find fta* 
t^is defersdant. No i^^gitlsa&t© reas<:3i appears for the repetition 
of tha dir»otioR to find th® dafsrdant ♦fio$ ^iity' so frequently** 
Ha htiv« no doi2bt that ^©rdiots are aonj«^l*s®a! f<a-o«£l frovn juries 
throu6h"6iii» hi.chiy iaprcpssr prastice* IhB preiSfs^nt o^ao is ojso 
in whioh tho practloe i'say h»ve work«<i to tii« ^^riouis injury 
of til© plaintiff in orror- ilattSo Balalay, i* siinaaa in tnis 

oase, iSSis injurod at tJ^o aarra tin© aT>d ir; tho saiao uiaraiar as 
th© plairstiff in arror« .^rs. Balaley sued iyn<3 d^fendajtt In 
error oand reootfored a vi?ralct and judgmisnt agaiwat Ms, and 
tha Judgment wsa affir?3«Kl by this court* (Hatti« H, Balaiay ▼• 
Jolm iietzol, Ko. 1B005 - Opinion fiiad uctob'^r 9, 1^13.) rh© 
avldano© in tho EJadaloy oaa© -varied but little from th^j a-yldenoo 



in thia caQ<», ana v^dld ma r^ooisrila* th« raot that. Ujs flnd- 
iR.iC cr ths Jury In tJie iialsi^y oaa*? nhould not oontrol om* 
aotion in ti^ia oa^e» y^r»rth«ldady Uie verdict of th« Jury in 
that eiis«» austainnjd ii«* it mta by Wi« lutiga^nt of thla oo\jrtj» 
Ifi a cirauB3stjmc« In support af th» cont^ttion that thias «ja»9 
wfts peculiarly <m« In whloh th« ti:<ial court aisould have fairly 
toid aeourat^ly inat-ruottsd t^io jury a^a to the lav af the oaaa. 

Plaintiff in error ooapiairtA of inijtruatlon So, 16, 
^v»n at the rd^:^«at of tfa© d^fsnUar-t in error. Tus inatrua- 
tioc reads 3,3 follow*: *id, Th© <jourt furt3i«r inatrucsts you 
that at and Ju>3t beforo th« tisse of the acoidert In qis®stlcn 
tho trolley Citrs op«jrat©d upon th* Olark s treat traolss hei.1 no 
rlsht» tip n arrj p*irtio«lar str««t at and within the iRt®rs«s-' 
tlOR of Gla^rk and Wellington street a superior t-o th© rights 
cf U^ daf«B^laf?t'i3 m&^on,* ttsla im» a suit ^tareflK th© plr»l*»» 
tiff In arror arsd %,h& dafendant in error, the osmar of tha anigg^^ 
Ir q(U90tion» ar>d not a auit bet«?e«SR the defer^dart ir? error and 

th€ 0treet ear israspsiiy. Th-: atr^ot oar coaspany was not s^^sn a 
party to the suit- Th# r*l4itiv« rlghte or tij© iiiiSls>ifsj OoJ^a^r^y 
eursd iha dof^^aitt in error *'j*t &-a a-lthirt this ir:t«rs3fetioy. of 
ai&rk ataI S&lllngt«m 6tr*atts* wars -not in-yc-ltf©d Ik t^"-'!® 'sa.?.®. It 
was not t!i« pro^lno& of ti5« Jur^- to <3Q^.piit-s ^xml d^tdrsrina the 
oor.?luot of th^ dsrfc^tdsrit In ^msr with tho ^on-iiiot o.f th* orj- 
ployooj of thfi str«9t r?!^ll»ay-i ooi&P«irj» Tii© qu«stionfor the 

Jury to d«t«rr5in8 in thia 0€te»3, so .far ?\s the ddf ^^dant in error 

in error 
afua ocnesrRod, atis, »t»a th© dof«rdA4-t^guilty of t-ho Rs^slis^'^nsa 

sharped in th* daol&raticei? ^.^stasingj for the -^sTpc^i^^ of tl?9 

argisTS-ant, that this d«ff?ndant in error in t.*'il?s oa.'se, aa li. Twitter 

of ia», h;-«i &.ii t-hs rit;iits at tixe tXim ar^s tJia-c© In <|u,©?:ti^^ 

the iTiStsniStlon gives hiw, ©till, that fast uGula nest, absolva 

hlti from tho consa^anoea following sjy injury to th« plaintiff 

* ^1 Vii^ 



"i* «* 

in 9rTor it the drlv«r of Ms wtkfs^f ** Ui« tlm> arii pji o«* Its 
^judstior:, *a& guilty oi" the iv«.«;llg«mc« dh&rg^ in Lh« deolaratior., 

*• ^»»^^-<^« 211; 111. 477. 

rh» iwJTJr fcighi »«;11 h&va aastused ft-oa thio InoiruG- 
tl<m that the «l«f<md&r:t ir err-t>r at tlvi tics© aitl just prior 
to tli» aof'Ssi««t In q^tmattoxi w»« ftctins within hta rl|3^ta, eo 
r»r as t^ ^tZNMt Kallvay Oost^pftny w»« cono^rtied, and that^ th«re- 
**oi^, thia fttot t9?^9d ir aor4« i»y ic exouse the- tieftmdart in 
9iPFor trots th© ooiia4»(iuerio&« of the aocldsnt to the pialRtitT in 

FXaiRtiff 111 ttrror oospial?!© of inatruotion Ko» 18, 
giY»n to th« y^ty at the reiuest of the dofendant in orror, 
thin Instruction reada as follows; *iB, Tt5« jury ore instruct*^ 
that «^-il» the law ponsltiS Us© pliiintiff in tbo oause to te^atify 
i» har own bdhalf , nsvertheiess the jury ha^i^ the rl^^it, in 
weighing har ©vid«*nce, to deterriiije hoe ssuch or«<i©n<5o ia to bo 
giver! to it ai%d to ta'^e into considerjitiofi timt s?3 is th© plalc- 
tiff and Interested In the remiit of the awit** i'tic* plsilRtlff 
in BTTGV and dofendatst ir: error ware botjh irfdividsjai», as^i both 
io^tifi^ In the o&s*. VhQ Inatruotion in c^uestioTi ?fei0 beforo 
this oonrt for roview ir tiiKi case- of :5 a ngJ5 t- gr v. 'r -_ t<^i |> ^ I:"4 ill« 
App. 340, ME* Tho court in passing upon the iKstmotior s^iidj 
"1*46 t»«mty-3ixtn instruotion should not hav® be«r: r.iven, Apr 
palleo, aa well as appellant, sas a gritn«©3 ir2 tlia o&atj, ymt th® 
ln33tr*aotlOT5 idsntirisa -uppollftni arKl dlroetis th© attention of 
tb« Jurgr tc har aiUxation arsl intsreat In the result or the 
oa.Be, '^itlwiit imy referanoe to the sit'a&tlon inr-d intor^^sst of 
appollee in tha 3?©«ult of %h& oas0« flhe inatruotioxj ma saieulat- 
©tj. to iT3pr®aa ths jury i'ith the tiiought tJmt tha oom't ent^rtainetl 
SOS5S special ro-sson for diaerodltirg the tsatinony c,f •ajip'i'i 'iant. 

J 3 

*hiah did tmt apply to ths taatieorqr of ivi^s>ll6€>, 'She InotriKj- 
tion should huv® been ^o dra*rt as to apply to oltjfeer j»art^ to 
%h& stiit »ltho«t d»3l,5natlj3jg: ©Ithsr. G, ■% S,I» a.K. Oo. v# 
aurrid^s, ill 111. 9; Taylor v. orowd, 122 ill. App, 518," 
CcunsdX for pliiintlfT in error s*«lc to «vad« th<» «ff»ot of th© 
givlsvs ot thia inatru«tlc93 Ir this aay* atnma«l insists Wmt 
th« daf«nc3ant Irs orror, Hotasl, did not t«atlff on aaiy disputed 
point in Uio Qvidenoe* aad Umt, thtsrofore, this <5otirt in pasa— 
lug upan this in»truoti<»i sliould csn^Jiaor th« oaso ao th«3ugh 
the d«f«nd/4nt lit error HQta«l Jiad Bot t«stificd in Um o«,*» at 
all* It i& a aulTioi^it asisvsr to this oontdrition to !»%y that 
the raoor^ dosm ahem thes>t tha defimdart Hetzel did testify on 
a disputed point of evidfenco in tfr^ oass, Shil» it ia truv9 
that tba sltResa Hotsel did f30t olaira to isavo ee^-i tho aootdertt 
In qu«aition, still, he did toatif^ to cirsicaatai^ooa t«5r?dlng 
to sustain tr;Q thiH^r^ of tha d3?ffi*4.awt in «rror xa to tiovf it 
h&pp«nod. rMa thoory was in oofiflict isltfe the theory of th® 
pl&intiff in error« ?h© tostlnonj- of l&tsol rr&e dse^'wd irrport- 
ar.t oiridtmoo by the defendant in error » at the trif^l of th^s ess®« 

Plftlntifr iT! e-jrr^r oosiplains of Instruotlcti Ho. IC, 
^ixr&n to the Jiar^ at th© rc»:pe«it Qf i^;& d&ff^-«d3f;T:t irj error, llie 
iratnjctiOR readi4 a» f<^llo?/at "19* If :?©ii j^ihoiild fin:! Um^ 
ifefe Chicago Rallia&y» iUxsgaxr.'/ B^i th» ddfcmd4*.T>t is^r© Ji&fcia to 
th© pli^lntiff Tor the Injtfriaa twisi&iruni by hsr iJ2 tiie acseld^^it 
Ik ijudstics:, %tmn ifcux oaf orjy ».il*^?f fi-a diamf-if-^'ti^ s^jch d^sarss, 

if Sktif^ ac the plaintiff Jma &A&%iJti-imd in esssr^s of th® mm o? 
5-^>0, the aF»ount ©hotm to haif© b«^" reosi'^-ed by ti"^ plalr^tif? 
fttJ^ the Clxix?agc Saiisays OcsEspany, and litiiesa tha pXv.lnUff has 
provtic bj- & prepo»Kiigr«snc© of '>:<.! tha a-^rid^r.^fe UViit she hi^s 
sustairioa dajsa^ee ir <^ss*»s of |r,~'>0, thfi« the ^i^^lniiff (?sr.^r^t 
reooTsr anyyiirvi i« tihis sustl^on, and foijr i?erd,i<5t Eu-st bd not 


Kuilty,* IR the o&ae h'&Tori^ ua the pl^wtiff In *rror. In 

c-trriBld»rat.Sor. of %hs payrwrrt fco her of |gOO by the .^ici^go R*ll- 

w.jrs Cotspan^, (mierod Into a oov<*n«kinfc *lth th*t said Jojnptirjy not 

to sue ttia aald Corapariy beoauae or on * ieC'^:2t cf th^ aoaidiitt in 

qu©ptlof% Thia caf^o tmd beer? orlplrsalXy co!wacno«;I a^irj.-:t tlm 

dtfenda-nt In error aarKi th» Chicago R/kilw&fB (kmfpary, t*ut aa a 

i^ault of the coY9n8kr!t In qinjstlon, the KaSlvaya Co^,p&nf w&s 

litsmlaafrc! freri th« o-n^i^ fly«i th© o&at> aas trlod «lth Jolin K^tsjoi 

«9 the 3cift dafersdant. TJw liir: armoime«>ti in inatruatiors !.'o, 19 

la in dire^'t 'lontllot with the law <m the* eawe a33bj«sot lii the 

oar.ij of ■j&TK'.'S^y ^. Otis laev&tor Co*, ^51 ill. 2e-»B» in this 

o&fts, tiie iiuprBrae Court fsaidj 

"Plairitiff In epror (»»3plaina thsit tiie cciirt 
«rr^ by ,\ivirvi; instruction, ;.; for tht^ deferalrvnt 
in srror. This lr;ns,iniotior, after stsitins the rule 
ror eatisiatir;,^ the da?.'Wi£:*» in csiise lii^ ci^f**n-ant in 
orror i*a3 e.-titled to reoovar, pr.iceetis to inforr? the 
Jurjr thi-t IVos-3 th« 5ua<^;{r5t, of aoUi?il dgu2aj];<J3 ciUst-^lr^Gd 
jhoiild be J©4uct«d .iS?? paid by %h^ Otia t;l®vator Jy^i- 
pdKj, providwi th© Jur;? baiiava t^iat the Otis ^svatvar 
C05sp&ny gras Jointly .?;uilty *itfc the pi^drtiff in qwot 
of the n'>;.-:iif3'^58 that eau^iwd thtt ir.hxiy and tb« ,1\ir^ 
•fter© aliso !r??orr!<.'d[ that If the Otis Kle^&fcer :or.piir?3r rif-&© 
not gaiitj' or nsiisiigsnad «ii5..oh}roxij;';-'.tsi7 aoritributS"! 
to t^■^ Ir.jury, tb« '|:^P «houl4 not ba daiucte-i frost thi^ 
actual daraa>-e3 suatalr;-i«i by tii<s de*«r.d;-i.nt In arrcr, 
rhl» irstpuction had no proper plao« iT» thia oasse «?ai 
idioiiid not h^^e Ijaar. gi^'Jii,' it ls5pr«.sper'iy sufedt^s to 
tT53 SvTf th« iaave aa to Aether %h& Otis alsiratcr Com- 
pany Sfx-i ^ilty of ne£ilgc;ri08 in ^Joiuivso-^ioii ti'lt.;i i,hs in-" 
J'UT'7 -iTb*^ no oi?'^h i^jsue '^aa ^ad«^ Jrs tiiss pl^a'iins^a* lli^ 
Cti^ ;:J2ttVAtr^r 'Josipfiny wn^j m>t a ^».rtv 5ic- this ."iuit, and 
it i?as5 ii^propc^r tc sR^brnlt thts :m@atlor. of its r©8pon?5i- 
bllitj for tha irsjury to th-t-" jury b^' thiin iriA^trtiotlor., 
The i--''^"'*^ faid the defendaiit in bttot ■-'/ tho Otis ^aavator 
•^-^t-apjiny e:i5, KOt pal^ Ji^; p::ort oo;i3i>«ViCiatior: fox* tli-J iriiary 
li« i^2C©lv«fd« It -^'ni^ paid for a gwyverjant not to further 
prosscsiite t:i9 atiit a^vO-irjat tliat oofiijiSM^y . Th& J'.sr-y- ha«i 
ncthini? to do ^ith t}^.at qi?©*5tlon and the instrniotioK i^hould 
not hav5 beon ^i^^sn. i1ri« s575 palu by th^^s oti-j iLi-yvuitor 
C<»np€ir.v could not b«9 (3onBi4@r0d by th@ 5'-J^y ^-^ pkrt pa^- 
rmnt of ci&tuxHiixr'X In sr^'or'ii ^iiWx^&^ .?lill€i t-ha inairus- 
tioK is &TTcri^ecinn fcr tho rou^-^^cr! statisd, «-^ oanrtot a©© 
;iO« it CDul-i hav'o ti3l,jl©d vh© .5«xy t-o tbts prt»Juj.ic<3 gr t?so 
piaitiiiiT in error* It it')!-:, thm Jury Umt iJiKlfer certJ^its 
«iroussat-a/5oes5 tfes ;iVS75 ijiscul'l be- asduxsted i'rot; tba ii^sount 
of dii'v&^^ii plfcirjtiff h&-l s-Axa\t%in^. If th^ Jury f©unf 
U;* t&Gts upcn wiiick thiiS: Ir? a true felon la .irs^ u^^ 
therein *tat«d, the ©ffe^t of tha instnactior. «aa to 


raduoo the dasmgea 4J$75, and In this view it ^otili 
ha ravorabla to the plaintiff in error, if, on 
tly& othor hand, tho ixwy oori?ide>r»d thjit the otia 
Kiovator aorjpar^y was not ^intly K^iiltv of nsgll- 
g^^nce sith plaintiff in ©rror, they are instructed 
to disreg-Ard the pftyaert of $'3'?5. Thi» pw^ of tm 
iratxniotion airsply told tho jiiry aha.t t?T0y ahctil ! hav« 
done Independantly of ths (jueation of tho participa- 
tion of thft Otl» Kl«vator Oorap«r.y in Uio wrong cosd- 
plalnid of. 3?h« nCl& in rsgard to joint tort fsaocr© 
is that ori^h wrcn^^doar is r^txponeible for tho whole 
iiEJOunt of da'^^a», an<l that there In no mifih thing 
as appcnrtitmin^, tJK:s daKjafjea sooAg joint wrongdoers, 
"ihla instr'^ctlon wiio lEspropfi-r ancl should not hiive b^en 
givmi^ hut »© are of the opinion that it ought not 
to lead to a reversal of th» juii^ent.* 

C<»inael for defendant in error streaiuously Inalsts 
t^^t as ti\fi Suprsrse Oourt in the oase aentionM, held that 
the inatruotlon before it for oonsivleration waa not pr^|«til- 
cial to the ri^rhta of the appellant In ^^t oaaa, that all 
that th® oourt aaid sfith reference to t*i© law of the imatrtic- 
tion vAiat be regardad as Obiter. Thero is no !8«rit in this 
ccsntention, the Supv'^se Oourt in tl^ laat rtj^ntlcmed oa»0 
scpmrely paaaod upon th« la* of the Inatruction in cyaeation. 
Cc^insel tor defendant in error ulao insists that this eourt 
should diasfsgard the ruling in th© oas^ of i>©vcuiey i?, Otis 
levator Co., m spry i, evon if this oourt should h& of ths opin- 
ion that the point in question aisis^ squarely passed upon by th® 
iSupr0?ne ^ourt, for the rmumm}:, as ootmssl acmt^nds, that the 
ruling', in the oasHi of Davseiey v, Otis Elevator vO«, aup _ r^ , ia 
bad lt*!s and io opposed to all th<s s^ell adj\i4l0Ji,t«d oaa^a on 
the Bub;j«»ot. iihil© wq do -ot a^-r@a sfith the oontentlcm, that 
the la* laid dosn In Uxq laat nentionsd oaas its rot good ia», 
it Xss. sH^ffioient to oay, in ar s^ar to tha cont*jntlon of counsel, 
that the oaee of i)«'van«.'5' y. Otis ivlsirator 00,9 aupm, its the 
ly.w of this ^stat^i sind la blrsiins «l><5n thit?- oc-nrt. It oannot be 
said in thti preaimt oa«e that tne giving of in'^trootlcn ??o. 19 
^mn r^% prejudicial to the ri^ts of th@ plaintiff In error. 
The defendant in error vlgorout^ly ccnteated the olaiis of the 


j*ls*inti£*f In mnt>r that ah© vasi awriously isijuiwi B.& th« 
resault of tl5«* acoi<lt«5t In qu«ation, it gj&y KfaH W, tlisr®- 
fore, that tha Jiiry i« this oyaat*, fovind i^cf& tho «vid(3nod tJmt 
tii« Jhloaga Bailwaya .Jiaapany iand the dor«rKlant Hetza-l wero 
llablo to U^ plaintiff in orror for ttm tn3,uTim& suatainod 
bjr iser In the aaclUent In qiad^tlon, tjut that the dai^agaa the 
plaintiff In «iTGr austainad vi&pq not in sxoaas ojp th9 m^m oT 
|200, If th« iury found that the iara&g©© g^uatdlnad wsr© not 
In oxoed^ of $^00^ uindL^r Inatructlan Ho. 19 %h&y «sr® tGl4 to 
find tilts <i«f«ndlant not guilty* Th# Inatriiotion, therefora, 
ffl&y havo b©an prejudlaial to the rights of tha plaintiff in 

i»x>r tlJ© rdaaonc indic&t&d in thl«i oplnlcai, tho a*-H2s- 
sent of the Superior Court ©i Dook Ooimty will b€> r^vsreed 
and th^ ofuaato sill s^t: r&>":i^fid&& tmt & nsw tns.1* 

'O'ber Term ^ nn 

Z?(i - 18740. 

/ 184I.A. 635 


for use of the STATE BOARD OF / » 

HRr\LTli, / ) ERROR TO 

Defendant fn isrror, ) 



V8» ^' 


Plaintiff In iirror. ) 




T|ila la an action of debt brought In the Municipal 
Court of ^fhleaRO by the People of the litate of Illinois, for 

the u»e of the state Board of Health, against the plaintiff in 
error, to recover the statutory penalty of $100 for practicing 
nedioine without a license. The plaintiff ir error waived a 
trial by jury. The ooxirt heard the evidence &ni fourai the 
plaintiff in error guilty aM irgpoaed a fine of fJlOO and costs 
and entered Judgment for that amount, and order od that the 
plaintiff in error stand oorajnltted to the county jail for a 
period not exceeding thirty days, unleas the fine wai3 paid. 
This writ of error ia sued out to reveraa tho judgment of the 

It appears from the evidence that the plaintiff In 
eifTor, living in the city of Chlcaj~o, had cauaad to be dis- 
tributed from house to housf? tho followin/ oiroulsir: 

"Are you sick? ;)o you ^noy of ar-y one that 
la sick? if ao smvl them this clialn of information. 
Do not bum thia tract or doatroy it in t^rxy way. The 
nen or worsen that do it, neod revor expect any rrore 
bloesinriS :is "ionc aa h^ or uhe liv9 in the body, i'hla 
tract ii3 printed and aer.t cut for no oUior purpose than 
to find the sic)r and sorrowful, thia thay nay he healed 
and aade vtoll by the 'Ht/allr;^r ?,ater* no I .varn you a'.-.o 
rec«sive it in any way lejft f*t your door or sent to you 
throxtgh the nail Aot to destroy it, bacauuo it is? tho 
word of :-od sent to you in thia way that you .'jay help 
the alok and needy, i'here la only thrae wmym to get 



«loknd90, rianaly: 1.) io Inhala It In your lunf.a, :,^) 
draw it throujTli tho ok in. ?•) :o be Immoral with the 
opposita 0ax« All dlaeaoes that otart In throu/sh tho 
skin, ne-ver atop until it raachoa the rmrrow of th-a bonea 
goln,'; in thr ugh the flodli and through the boR-^is, when 
It renoheo tho aarro.«, that ia tho center of your feeing, 
When the dlaeaae reaohoa tha raarro.? in the bores thu- Docs- 
tor^s say you tiro incuart^-blo and tell yo'.j »o, arcl imny givo 
up to dio beoau68 they do not »oo anyt Inf «1h«) to do but 
to die. If you ar*.j sick and thi;. tract or ohaln of In- 
formation ocroaa to your hand, aay ripht froc^ that aom^jnt, 
I will (5©t well, and you will, booausn od w^lll heal you 
tlirou^gli the nasna of Je^fua ai-xl with ♦H©{*ling at^re'. All 
tho liaeaseQ that have been oaua«d tiirough the akin rnuat 
be draum out throuj^h tho 8k5n, because that la t)ie way 
it went in. All diaeases of the lunga nuMt be ejected 
trrough the south, beoaurfe it >va:j inhiilfe>d throu.'h tha noo- 
trila. /ou raay want to know If 'Healing waters' *ill cure 
any and all dlaoaaes or the oauei^o of diseaaea, 'sa, i 

take a aisall linen handkerchief and bleaa it and sen.i it 
to you right away. You take this handkerchief and pin it 
to your flanrolla right over the jibdomon and weur it thore. 
Take a quart of water and put it in a bottle. JUow your 
breath In the bottlo three tiraee, in the narea of tho Father, 
hon and Holy Ch03t, and you will have the •Healin/j atar'. 
Now taUo a apongo bath with this water every day for a 
week, thtm after tha-t every other day or nir^it which ever 
ia be-3t for you. Aa you take the bath call the dl£5eai30i3 
out mentally by nane in your ?nlnd tall it to corat out in 
the naico of tho Fath^^r, Son and iloly 'hoat, in a little 
while you will find yotirself j-^ettinf; stronger srd well. 

■^ow, for L'.?n,j dioease and Jlseaas of tho Throat. 
Don't take another drop of ^K.-p& for such siaknesa booaus© 
it does not do any ;;ood, '"he di-pe doea not go into tho 
lungs, but it gor>0 in to the stOTsaoh ard paeaes out Ilk© 
anythlni; eli.ui you put in it. Send to me for a bleaaed hfind- 
kerchlef, wear it acroas your cheat and i will ^vrito you 
the iforda to auy in your r;ind, aa you take lor.,"; breaths an i 
worda t6 say, so you lot out th© breath with afflrrr-ttiGn 
in a little ?;hll© you ^ill find youraolf getting 'veil, if 
you will aend ne nura® and I will pray for you e.'ich day, 
3end no a arcall piotura of youraelf it sill help rn-. to help 
you to recover fast'sr. Yeta, help m'j to h&al ten thousand 
people thie year, help '^o to cure you, I knew ^vhat I oay ie 
tnie, lou rrwiy wii,nt to kncv ho'.v miah it will coat ycu, it 
ifflll coot you love for the alck, wi3hin<- thera well, 
wiahini* yourself iiali, if you avQ ablo to send us noney 

to nay for printir^^ urA other expensed do so and :.«od will 
blesa yoti, wti iSill rec«iT€ anytr.inir, fro*^- you, fron ^l.oo 
and upivardo. 

Mothora, if yoi? will do ■jiH-i.t i tsll yoti, you will 
never loa© your baby or largs oh-ildrfe^n, no ?r;atter what 
th© child's aioknean ia. I will t^.iv^ you the aeorot in 
part, take your aiok child in your lap look it deep down 
in tijo oyec and rope-ut the myatio >vord^' of '^li-':bty powf^r, 
open tho child's raouth, blow your breath thrtat? tiriets in 
thii Child's ipouth in the niise of th*5 Father the .on and 
the Holy :bo3t and froa Uiiit hour your child tslil begin 

to t^Ct iVOll, 



r^othere and i''ather«, if you or any of yrjur friends 
have th® oonuuraptlon ar.d ootigh, oon not 3l«ep, can't eut 
have loat flesh, I aill t«il /cu -.hat to eat and drink 
with the Inatruotlonu tibovo, and you *ill bre iUi aell, 
and oat well and get fat. ' y friend, 1 Ixav© rothlnf, 
aloe in view but to get c;od»3 people »ell. 'jnn ycu halp 
nj«T X wim ycu again, do not destroy thi-s tract, talr© 
a ono cent atarap and put it on an envelope and put thle 
tra=Jt in it, and iiiail it to aorro one that id aiok, if you 
do not kno« onyon© that i." sioV, aarvl it to Hor^ on« fxr.d 
when h© r»ooiv«i5 it he !>3U,.t do llVowiaa, do not aay a word 
against it booauso you don't know anything: about it. All 
peraona wlahlnr, information on anythir- ruiut aor.d a stamp- 
ed and addreaaed onvelope, this wudt be don© that ycur 
letter will not 50 byrnlstaV© to a wronjp; addreoo. I ex- 
pect you to help me with your prayers and ^onoy, and T 
will heal you, 

Juot put a ^reon baok dollar or wore, in an envelope 
arui siail it to rje* 

Jb'V, DIv, J, B, HOilK-Rf 13 • i^» 

S217 LaSalle Street ChloaflD, 111,* 

The state j^oard of Kealth, learning of the distribution of the 
ciroulare by the plaintiff in error, throi^gh it a attorney, k'r» 
Ailinr.» sent two feral© eaployeea to the rer^idenoe of the plain- 
tiff In error to inveetigate. Theao inveotl^.atora testified, in 
subatanoe, th;it they laet th« plaintiff in error at his horse and 
that one of thera said to the plaintiff in orror that ahe eame to 
see hin for treatCTsr.t and that ahe »l8h??:d to inquire about his 
Healing Water, and ttaci aticac xjcakatdt to know if %)w plaintiff in 
error could do anything for hor; th&t the plaintiff in orror 
said that h© cjould help har and th-it h© aoiald find out ^'hat 
her aili3«nt waa, but that she would hr-ve to do cx*otly ui^ he 
told her; that he then told the two inveatlgatorss tc alt down 
and closd thslr oyea: that plaintiff in orror than told the 
inve>atlgator who had conaulted him to repeat after hirr? the 
following sorda: "In tha Tiame of this Father and tho :jon help 
me to find out what thisj lady is suffering with"; that ho then 
stated tlvit tha lady wa;* suffering ftlth stonach trouble; that 

ha then rjaid to hor "I will get you the iJt^allng \vatera but you 
KWnt koap ycur gyea closed or the apell will b© broken t that 
he then went to sowe nlaoo in the house and on his returr: ho 


11 i»# 

'■ tout 
iq, tuVt 

xxxxxx XXX xxxx r; 

'^' *tyrsi 

--^ lie 


i/Twi m» 

brought aith hlns a bottle of water and handed it to hor, aay- 
iKg at the tinjo, "this is th« Hettlinc isratap"; that h« than 
directed h«r to saturato a lir}«n handkerchldf witJi th« »rat«r 
and to plao« th» handkorchl »f on hor atoiaach &% nifjhtj that 
when »h« did thla ahe should u«» the follo^ilrg langijagoj •in 
the noisa of tho Father atrt th© .ion help the doctor try to heal 
n©*; that ahe th^i asked the plaintiff ir> error what hia charges 
wertJ and he aaid one dollar; that ahe paid his the dollar; that 
9b» then s^iowad hits a clroular &nd aakdd hiii? if it wae hi a ad- 
YertiseTi<»^t and he said tlmt it was: that he stated that he 
&&rX the ciroulara around and Uiat warsy pec pits o&lled* ?he two 
invetstigatora further tea tl fled that t>i«y oall@d & aeooRd tiae 
on the plaintiff in error a few days after th« fir.<t visit and 
that aubatantially the aaoe things happened on tJi© seoond visit 
aa had oijcurr«d on the firat visit 5 timt they received frois 
the plaintiff in ezrror & bottls of watar on eaah vloit; that 
the water hrtd u awiset smll; one of the investigators stated 
that on the oeeaslon of the aceond visit the plaintiff in qttct 
treated srith hie haj^a the head of tim invsistlgatca:* aho had 
ccnaulted hiR, The Inveatigatora ainitted that neither of 
thes req'.iired la&dical attention, I'he olroular thstt the irvostl- 
gators teetlflM th«y ahoi?ad to t^* plaintiff In error on the 
ocoaalon of tJieir first vlait %us introduced in evidence. 

On behalf of thij plaintiff in error, plaintiff in error 
testified that he weia a ralni^ter of th=t gospel; that h« waa 
ordained by John iMexarsder '^os-ie; that he had no diploaa or 
certificate to preach: that h« had never studiesd for the rdnls- 
try; thut he had only three months achooling in Mn life; that 
he aras in charge of a ni salon at 47th orsi Araour avenue, srMch 
was supported by offerings; tljat h© kept no track of Us© m^n- 
b©rs of hi a oon^regationj that ha hsia cauatsd olrcular^t like 



the on« that had b««n introduced in •rldsnoa In th© oaso 
to he prlntad and distributed froia house to house; that he 
did not profeae to tre^it phyiloul allsente; that h© f;aYe 
peoplo advlo© idi^t to do and how to prayj that he did not 
Ixy to dlasnoee sieloMss; that h© elaply pr&yed for the alokj 
that he did not gi^e soij^y^ liquid In bottles, but h© told th© 
people hos they should make the 11 juid, Th© plaint irf in error 
furtlier testified that he hJid never seen eithsr of the two 
investigators and he denot^ood their evidence as false in toto« 
Soveriil sltneaaes testified that they kn»»ar th© plaintiff in 
error a© a rainiator and tiiat they hfid never heard of hira treat- 
ing anybody or profeeaing to treat anybody for aiaknesa or 


v>cimsdl for th© plaintiff in ^rrcr aontendg tJiat the 
trial co^irt arrea In adraltttng th© oirciilar in evidence. I?o 
good raasone ;ire advanced nor are any authorities cited in sup- 
port of this ccBRtenticn. the invest liters testified t'^at the 
circular in question sraa shosn by th«R to the plaintiff In error 
when they visited him and that he stated to thsia that it was 
csne of !»any that h» had printed and diatrilrutsd, and tisat people 
called an hia aa a result of the ril stribution cf tine sircularg. 
On cross-exmnin&tlor. tn« plaintiff in error ad:n' ttsd that t>ie 
oirculJAT in question sas ono of jsany th<^t Vte h?id printed ard 
dlatribxited* I'ho circular in quoati:^ tontled to mtpport the 
char?,© in the atat&'CRsnt of dales and it waa therefore competent 


Jotinael for plaintiff In orror Insltit that the evldorsoe 
Oi th9 two investigators ia fslae in toto. if the testlT-HWiy 
of the t&o investigators ia to be believed, it foUoss that th© 


plaintiff in error in his tastlraony ia guilty of perjury of 
the groaseat kind, i'ho trial court aa» th« .sitnoa^aa and h»d 
far b©ttar opportunities tbar vv« to p*aa upon their credibility. 
A oaroful study of th« record, hosever, satlafioa us that tho 
trial court nade no nlatake In hl» oonoluslona en (fueationa of 
fact in the oaae. 

Plaintiff in error InaiAta that tlie evidenoe of*f«red 
on behalf of the deftmdant in *i-ror, even if it iii to be bft- 
llevedy ahowa that the inveotl^^torirf Indiioeil, solicited and 
prooured the pl<i.lntlff in error tc practice Kedioine (if it is 
to be held that the evidence provea that h© did practice nediolne), 
and that the plaint IT in error csa^not fee hold legally rosponaible 

for any ucta ho aay have <»f«5itted under such olrcunatanoas. In 

appellant oitsa 
eupport of this cont&ntio- y^the o^se o: oity of GMo^go ▼, jestQr- 

ease iire. i?sat(srip"«ra was prose<»uted on :* char;re that ah« unlaw- 
fully r©celv»<l and <^taln«»d ti-ie mm of fifty cants fros on© 
petor Slokokia by finuidulsnt devices ^«r;d pr&otices in the n^ae 
of or by Bseana of spirit :^»dlvraship, fortuns telllni;, etc. 
The evidenoa in the oa;?e sho^^ed thnt Jic.-'-okis sae a polioo officer 
arul th^it h© called on t':rs, ^estargren for a reading 9.n.i pai"; her 
fifty cants for the sarg®, iSickokia did not rely tipon or belisv© 
the atateniunts timt «^ers rsade to hisn by Mrs. vv#stergrab and 
he wa« in no aarawsr deoeivod or defratgied thereby* Xhe Appellate 
Court hold that Mrs, '.vestsrfsren, u«i©r the ovtdeno© in the ca; ©, 
was not guilty of obtaining '^asnay by fala^ pretenses* The plain- 
tiff in error in Uiie ease ^as not prosocut«i cnn a ahargo of 
obtaining; -nor^y fro?' ones of th« investigators by false pretens^js, 
lie sue sued on a chii.rf'se of treatin^^ as^tl profsssing to treut and 
prescribe oertuin rmtei^ial renedlea for the physical ail«ient of 
another person .without a lie«mse. Xhs evid^^oe arrows tmt the 


Invostlgators did not aditam or encourage th« pl&irjtiff in 
QiTor to !>ofrsnlt the aota forming th« basis of* th« suit in qt»a- 
tlon, but It doee »hoa tbat the State l^oard of Health, aua- 
pectlfig frow the distribution of the olrculara that the plain- 
tiff in error was practicing ^sedloine without a lioanao^ took 
proper atapa to aaoortain if tho suspicions of tha doard oon- 
oeming th« plaintiff in error raer© corroot. This ia a civil 
oasa and the strict rul»a that ^tovam criminal oases do not 
apply to it, but avsn in a orialn&l oaao, vrhsre all tho ri^ts 
of tl-ia dsferd^tnt are oar^? fully guarded, the la^ is that where 
one suapeets another of a villingnes^ to oomait a oertaln of- 
fense, the law does not px^vent the one froa taking steps to 
ascertain if the otlier aroula corroit tha offense. To prohibit 
preoaution.-ury steps of thlu oharaeter fros being ta'jen should 
be "to destroy one of the s^ost ©ffeotiye agencies for the de- 
teotlorj of crime, if, durin^r th€ investigation, the piirty, 
without encvuragesent fro» the inveatigator, ooraalts a crliuinal 
offense, he sill be held responsible for tha aats©". Smith v. 
pjgople, aSl 111. 189. 

Counsel for plaintiff in error insist that t^,^ aote of 
the plaintiff in error did not constitute a vioiatlcn of the 
section of ths statute in quesstion. To support ihic? oontemtlon 
o<amvei is forced to asssuKe the trt.?th of certain parts of the 
testinjony of the plaintiff in error tc the effect that h« did 
not dia>:^no3e cr treat diaeaee, and that he slrsply prayed to 

cure siokneaa, in answer to thia contention it is only neoea- 
sary to say that when all the evidence in the case ia flonsiderod 
togethisr, it clii.'irly au^talna th^L^ cJxarge in the atatei?5ent of 


CounfiQl for plaititiff in errorbinsists that the plain- 
tiff in error, under Art. 2, iiec. of the uonetitution of 1870, 

O.I ^0';"irt 




,v rl^iiTo r.'rn 

had a. logal riijht to pray for th© our© of aiokyioas or dis^aao. 

The oorrectri©tt8 of thle contention we ohderfiilly oonceda. Th« 
ftcratitutloiml provision referred to, hosover^ did not give the 
plaintiff In en»or tho right to practio© taeitclne without a 
license. 'ili<* plaintiXT In «rrop «&» not found guilty in the 
caoe beo&us?e he pntyed for the oure of ^iolmeaa or dlaer^BS, 
but 'oooau:>o he jwractlcocl Bodloina sitiiout a Ii09n30« 'Vh^ plaln- 
tifi' in »rror »as & t|UAOlc of thb Hsost l.cjrjorant type* hie preyed 
upon tho feeble esinded and the credulous. His alleged treat- 
asrt fcy pr»f &r sarae tt mere pratende, used by hls! to doak the 
fact tliiit >i« waa praotising sjedioine. 

Oouraal for the plaintiff ir error eortand^ that there 
la rx> proof ot venue in the record, ar^ hi cltee the oasa of 
Dou.^;jh4Hrty ¥ . The ?oople« 11? Ill, 160 in support of the olalra 
that the irenue rauat be proven in t' in oase* In the oiaaa sited 
Dougherty was Indiotsd for jaurder and the ^upretao Ooiirt held 
that in ariainal ^^see th-3 ventae of th^ oriiae sstnt bti proT«n. 
rhe pT'aii<mt proceedln/r la not a orisdntl oase, and the rylea 
of oriniir'al pleadir<3 and practice do not appl^ to it, p?o;?le 
▼• '^^artanateln, Z^n 111, 54<>, oSl* The evidenoe did sbo^ that 
tho cffensQ was cosEJitte'i in the 3ity of Chicago* 

sie tirjd no error In tlila reisord, and. the judgoant of 
tho JiunieipaX Court of Chioago will therefore bs afflrcaed. 


3r«f 0'i<3t6n&-'-' •:.'•-. C-Jw; 

ctoDer Toi-m, 1912. ITo. 
S49 - 18816. 

^A thQ nutitlon of 
In the roiitJk»» arre<?t«d at the suit 


r" Or appeal of JAOuB BRSMiLH, / 

Appallar.f, j COarnt OCURT 




\ Appel^e* ) 

\ / 

\ / 


rhs app«ll^© fllod a au^t against the appellant in 

the ??unioipal Courti, of Chloago^ and at the sane tino wade a 

d«^'ar4 for a jury ti»ial. In .ih« etateraert of olalm filed 

by the appellee Ir. tfis.t oa^e the appellee) charged that he biir- 

gained with the appellant to buy of hlia a flrat lion deed of 

trusty with the notes evidencing the debt secured thereby, for 

the purpose of an investnentj that the appellant then and 

there bargained with the appellee to a^ll to hisi a deed of 

truat and a prinoipiil note for |300, secured by said trust 
deed, together «ith certain interest notes j all of said in- 
struaents being executed by one Marl anna J, P. Grithasi; the 
said notes and the eaid instruraent being described in detail 
in said statemont. The appellee further avers in said state- 
ment that the said securities ^s^re in the poasassion of t}ie 
appellant at th© tine of the bargaining, and that tho appel- 
lant falsely, deoaltfully and fraudulently, and \?lth the in- 
tent and purpoae of induoinr* the appellee '.o purchaae aaid 
socuriti0c, warranted and represented to the appellee that 
said deed of tryst was then a first lien and encumbrance of 
record upon the real estate deecribod therein, and that it 
was th© only csortgato or truat do<?d enounibranoe thereon, and 
thfit eaid trust deed and notes wera a good and Eserohsintable 


lO Xjb^. 


.. 1Q1 i^-i^db 

• -lisa-swd eier: 
- :.9Son btma 

btAB f»! 


. x,he represen'tatlorjs and warranties so rsado 
invoatnent and ** 

*xar.t to th« appellee «©re sell knoam by the appoi- 
by the ' 

t, to be f^ilae, ["h© app«lla« fixrther avera In the aaid stato- 

nent that for a long tieie prior to the said transact Ion, the 
appellant was and hud been a dealer and broker In raortp^agea, 
notes and truat deeds; that the appellee wasi ignorant ard in- 
experienoed In au^ matters and unaoq^ualnted »ith the aaana and 
sethoda of dotormlning afheth^r mortgage eecuriti'ds were first 
liens; that he, the appellee, had no knowledge or notice ccn- 
cemlns the ccmdltion of the title to aaid real estate, ard 
that he believed and relied upo?^ th© representationB by 
the appellant to hint ar>d that he purchased the -aid s«0',aritles 
and paid the appellant for the aasne, he appellee then further 
avers that the jaid trust deed waa, as a laattsr of fact, at the 
tlno of the aaid transaction, not a first lian but a third 
lien, and that there were at ths ties© of the said transaction 
two prior trust deoda of record (describing thes) an?i that the 
said securities ec sold to tho appellee by the appellant were 
at the tise of tho sale, and ever have been, of no value what- 
ever; all of which the appeiliuit at tiio tiae of tho ;jaid bargain 
and saiu .-ell krea; that the holder of the fir at lion tru.jt 
deed on t-'e ;3aid property, 3uba©q[uent tc tho tlTPa of the pi^r- 
chay© of the »aid iiecurltiee by the appellee of the appellant, 
foreclosed the oase and bought in ths said property; that snid 
Marianna J. ■.\ arahss, or the app^illant, oontinu-M to pay tc tho 
appellee the i?-.tore-.^t on th© said note purol^ased f:y the appellee 
of the appellant imtil March n, H?10, and that ths appellee did 
not lOiim of the deceit and fraud of the appollant tmtil abotrt 
July 1, If 10. The atat©r-«3nt of claini is verified by th© affi- 
davit of the appellee iiiirrivy. 

— 3— 

The appellant Breiser filed in the oase an affidavit of 
raeritsy in srhioh h® stated that ho, a^i a broker for real aatate 
loans and sales, had an application for a loan of $000 frora one 
Qrahara upon the real estate in quest Icxrt, ajnd that about the 
sasje tiiae said appellee desired to purchase a loan of about 
the saxse araoijait; that he informed the said appellee that he, 
the appellant, had no abstract of title to the property and 
bad not exansinod the reoorda; th^it ha advised the said appellee 
to see the property arai the o.»ner thereof and to make siioh arrange- 
Efienta as «<Aild be aatlafaotory to him, the appellant; that the 
said appellee per9<»ially investigated the .matter and dii^cted 
hiri, the appellant, to make out the necessary papera, ahlch he 
did; t:nat the traneaction wae oonsuimsated by the parties to 
the earse ai*! that h-3, the appellant, did nothing In the pre'^^tiaes 
except to draw the necessary papers. App^llarxt denied that he 
oade the ropresentationa charged hj the appellee In hia state- 
ment of clais!, and denied that he had any knoaledf.a aa to the 
character or title to the aaid real estate, and ha averred that 
he had stated to the appalldo that he kne^? nothiiig regarding 
the title to the property and that the appellee would have to 
deterFtlno for hisaself the facte regarding, the title to thr= prop- 

Upon tiie iasues ao joined the case saa subsiittesi to a 

jxiry, she returned a vorvllct f inkling the appellant guilty as 

alleged in the appellee ♦a statenent cf clais, and assesaing the 

plaintiff's damageg at |6SI.87 in tort, Tho followin,^, apeoial 

interrogatory T^ao subaitted by the trial ccxirt to the Jurys 

"Did tho defendant, Jiicob Hre^or, at the tirso he 
negotiated ar:d delivered the notsH OLVid tho tri;st dead !»■> 
question to the plaintiff ^/illiara Murray, (if th© jtzry 
believe frors the evidence that the defendant did nego- 
tiate and deliver the trust deei and notes to th© plain- 
tiff) have the rnalicious ari fraiidulont intent to deceive 
and defraud the Blalntirf and to obtain his njcnoy by the 
false repreaentsition and pretense that the said trust deed 


1 sua l^ni 
i iiii4 Jxw: X^** 

orU o^' 

. ^ .1 T , 



&r-,d rsot»s BO negotiated and delivered r-y tho defend- 
ant to the plaintiff oonstltuted a first nort,p;ag© lion 
or. thd real estate descrlbtsd therein?" 

iSlth tholr verdict the jury rotumed an afflrcuitivo an««er to 
the said interrrogatory. A wotlon for a nois tri&l wao overruled 
l5y the trial court tmd jiKigraent wcta entered upon the ver^llct, 
the oourt finding and adjiKlging in the JudgzDent that the ap- 
pellant, at the time he negotiated the notea and trunt deed in 
question, Jmd the aalioioua and fraudulent intent to deceive 
and defraiKl the appellee t?y ti'e false representation and pre- 
tense thi?.t tlie s id nctee ar;d truat deed conotituted a first 
csortgage lien upon the real eet^^te -leo -rlbed in tlie truat deed 
and tlittt raalic© »aa the igist of the actltm. 

!io appeal seetss to have been taken by th*? appell^it 
frora this jw^igs'^J^-t- o^ the .uniolpal Oourt, After ho had been 
arx*eeted on a writ of oapiaa ad e a ti afagiendiga issued upon the 
jud^aent he filed a petition in the Jounty Gourt of cook County 
on Deoeraber i;2, 1911» setting up that he haci been arrested lender 
a tsrrit of capias ad aat i af aoi endues issued by the ■unlclpal court 
in favor of the aaid appellee for the auta of ;ii3i.8^, and that 
ho vias then in the custody of the sheriff of the county of Oook, 
under and by virtue of said s^rlt, and tiiat he was desirous of 
releasing hia body fror. arrest or inpri iionaent unclsr said «frit 
by scheduling his property imdor the provijjions of the statute 
relating to inaolvent debtors. The appellee, aa the ajrre^ting 
creditor, filed an ano«er to the petition of tha appellant, 
in "shioh answer, as finally ainended, he set up in full the pro- 
ceedings in the case in the :unlclpal Court arsl alleged that 
Tnalice »a0 the e'^ist of the action in that case ar^i ttmt the 
queaticn aa to shothor ^ralloo was the gist of the action In 
the ca.3s had been detearained adversely to the appellant ir. the 
l?unicipal Uourt arKl that the appollar^t aas concluded by the 



:j,%j. n* 

-;Ti \1^'-' 



judsEsant of the Munloipal aourt fron again litigatlr^ said 

iesue, and that tho petitioner »&a iaot an Insolvent rtsbtcr 

irlth^thQ purview of tho "Insolvent i>«b tor's Act* and was not 

antitlod to aohedul© hia property under the said act. On th© 
hoarlng of th« petition of the appellant in tho County Court 
tJ^iO appellee offered In evidenoe tho reoorcl of the oaae In the 
liunloipal Court, No objection waa moda by the appellant to the 
introduction of the record. Coiansal for appellant then offer- 
ed to ir:troduce evidenoe to ahow that Itelloe waa not the gist 
of the action In the fclunlcl]^l Court oaae. The trial court 
held that it waa clearly apparent froE the record in tJie Mtini- 
clpal ;;ourt case that laalic® wac tiis gist of the action in that 
case ar\d tha.t the question as to whether ssalioe was the glat of 
the action in the case htid been decided adversely to the appel- 
Ismt in the Mtmioipal Gourt proceedings, and tiiat the judgment 
in that caao was res a 1 Judicata of tho question. The trial 
court thereupon refused to admit tho evidtms© offered by the 
appellant, denied the petition of the appellant and ra.-sanded 
him to the cuatcly of the sheriff of Oook Gounty. An appeal 
to this ootirt waa taken from this order of tJie County Court* 

rhe only asaignisent of error urged by appellant in 
this court ia that th« trial court errod in refusing to allow 
the appellant to shovt, by evidence, thut njalice was not the 

gist of ths action in tho n^nioipal Court oao^j, Couns?;! for 
appellant Jont?in<ic that thjs evidence offered was nyade oorope- 
tent by th* ruling of the trial court in admitting in evidence, 
on motion of th© appellee, the rooord of the oaae in the ■ uni- 
cipal Court, The appellant nade no objection to the admission 
of the record, but waiving this queetion, however, we are of 

■ fcan©^ 

■Trr .??*»« vl.-io 


thQ opinion that th« ruling of the trial oourt In adnlttlrg 
the rooora anJ In refitain^ tc allow the appellant to Intro- 
dues tiao dv.cltenoe in qu«rttton was oJl early pi^per. iSither 
party had tho rlgjit to introduoo tha racocrd in oviderc©. if 
tho roocrd a>iOw«K! that n&lioe was tri« j^ist of tha action In 
tho ilunioipal Coiirt oarto, the Juiipnont of tlmt court ToxUd be 
Cttfi. a^i j n^i0f > t . i t of the luoaticn, and tht> upp^ilart wotild not be 
allows! to intrortuoa ovld3n«© to show tlnat irsilloe 'jma rot the 
glBt of tl>« aotlon in thij case. If tho question as to whether 
or not aaliije ;m-. Utv 3! at of the action in th« >ainloipal Cotirt could not bo dotoxriined fron an inspiactlon of the record, 
then either p^^rty, or both, would ho alloyed '-o Introduoo evid- 
ence boitrlng on that (xueetlon. The ca3?r of J&rnb.or g^ v, i*lx, 
199 111, C57, ia ar Illustration of a case in whloh evidence 
isay be offered. In that cau« there jf9TQ 3*(veral counts to th© 
declaration, arai oalice iras the giat of the- action in aose of 
theze and not of others- It was held in thia Qaim that tho jud.?« 
if.ant .va3 not conclusive on the qtiestloR of raalice, for the reason 
that tho verdict alight havs ho&n returm;d upon counts which did 
not Include the el^sent of mrilioe* 'Djts petitioner In that caae 
«ae, t':<3rrefore, &llos:eii to i^ho^ by evidence t^s^t tha verdict 
&>nii judgaj«nt sore baec-d upon a count -«here raalioc ^as not the 
gist of tho action. If, en the cthtjr hard., tie question .s to 
ahether jnalice irasi th© gist of the action in fha case in which 
tilts judgsi«'nt »«s rendered, on which the capi&s y^ sp 1 1 af acl endtaia 

issued, can be doterrined from an Jnspecticr of the recorti, the 
^udgsent of that court would be eonolueivo as to tfrnt question, 
arid .vouid bn. r.&a_a-i4judljsal.a* Jerrjborg v. ^tiacii 199 111. 2M; 
l^iebel V. kuttnaus^r, H? ill, App. 629; Bex v. People, Is'?^ 
111. «4ip, 'SOU; Drygalski v. Tldele, lf^3 ill. App. 2^0; Laaoher 
V, Carey (Ko, 18537 - Opinion riloti In this court Octobor 9, 

f :,;'i a.'j^ r .'fr 

. i«i « ■' I r 


-'Oi I^fTf 

i'h© iiupreia© uourt in the oaae of Jornberg; v » 3(ix, 199 

111, SS4, 2?5^, In deXlRlng th© t^rra "Kalio©*, *ia uaod in the 

IneolTont Debt;or»* A3t, uses tha follo»ir.g languafsO: 

"rhe terra 'Tsialio©*, ao uaed in th© aot Ik quea- 
tloRy appli®!^ to that olaaa of .rrortga wiiloh are Inflicted 

with asn 9Yil intent, design or pttirpooe. it i-rplioa that 
ths ftuilty party was actuated by iBprop^r or dishonest 
sjotives, and req'Jtrerj the tnt-esnt ion&l perpetration of an 
injury or a wrorjg on ar.othsr, (Fir at ?« tional iiark of 
rloru ▼• Burkett, 101 111, SOlj Kitaon v- Farwell, i;52 
111, ^/J7,) re entitle a tleferjdant to diaoh'ir,'?e froin ira- 
pri -ontnent it Biuat appear that th6 srror.- ror wj^ieii the 
action *a3 brouj^^t wad not of tJiat character, Vho >^ist 
of an aatior. ia the ©oacntisl grour:<i or prinolpal BUbjeot 
natter, without Trhich the aotion oould rot be taalntalnod,* 

'Aliefi the record in the yimiolpal 'ourt case is aubjeeted to 

thia ie@t» it seesis v«ry alear thstt B»li«e sraa the- ^int of the 

aetior Ir tJmt caoo, i'he Judgaert in the ^iuniclpiil Court case 

v&s therefore re s adjudioata of ths ciueation of laiilioe and the 

trial ooiirt ruled correctly in refusing to allow tho appeilsmt 

to Introduo© ths evidw^oe cffsrtjd by hiaa. 

The jud|^«sr?t of the County oourt will therefore be 


i to i 



Vol 184 

This reserve book is not transferable and 
must not be taken from the library, uA««|ii*iwh«n 
MQjj^ijkjifaat^" bill for :overnight use. 

Borrower who signs this card is responsible 
for the book in accordance with the posted 

Avoid fines and preserve the rights of others 
by obeying these rules.